To ask if YOU having MMR?(259 Posts)
Ok. I have vaccinated my dc according to schedule. I got an email at work today from occupational health people (not healthcare or similar) saying that if you a) born after 1972 b) didn't have 2 doses MMR and c) didn't have confirmed case measles then should have MMR now! I asked my Dad (retired gp) and he said I had one measles jab as child, didn't have mmr (although my younger brother did) - he said v v likely I was immune. However he thought slight risk of not being immune.
I am sure a lot of you fall into the category above (most people born between 1972 and 1980) - so who is having.
I don't work with children or in healthcare - I work in an office.
Thanks, Iwish, I'll have a look at that.
MrsTwgtwf. Sorry, I lost lots of links to studies when my laptop died last year. Not got time to dig around at the moment.
This isn't MMR specific but still makes interesting reading.
So the docs called back and said they won't give me the MMR. I made a bit of a fuss and they said someone esle would call me back tomorrow.
Do I have a leg to stand on asking for it? Afaik I am not immune and work with kids, though not in a high risk part of the country.
IwishIwasmoreorgnaised - don't suppose you can link to any of the research linking MMR to the development of autoimmune conditions, please?
my mum was telling me about my measles the other day.
she said it was awful and she was really distressed about it at the time.
I was never comfortable and she used to soak my baby sister's terry nappies in freezing water and wrap me in them. she said I was so hot that I would dry the cloths.
forever. There is some research which links the MMR to people going on to develop autoimmune conditions.
Already having an autoimmune condition leaves you predisposed to developing others - something that I'm not keen on obviously, which is why I was considering getting the single measles jab.
Luckily, my blood tests have shown that I am immune to all 3 (measles, mumps and rubella), so I don't have that decision to make thankfully.
The advice on adults is here under MMR for adults
I was born in 1975. I had meales, didn't have mumps, and I didn't have the rubella vaccination as a teenager (family history of adverse reaction - all discussed with GP at the time).
I wouldn't have been rubella immune in pregnancy, so I had a rubella vaccination 3 years ago. Except that they no longer offer a single rubella vaccine on the NHS, so I had to have the MMR vaccine, which I did.
Got an email back from Doctors that says:
"Patient has only has one dose MR in 1994 - patient needs to have 2 doses MMR a month apart and not be pregnant or intend to get pregnant for 3/12 (^3 months?^) after being vaccinated."
Off to book an appointment...
Don't believe I have been vaccinated
Both DDs have been vaccinated
I would if offered - no questions
dd3 was diagnosed with rubella by a GP but he didnt order blood tests. He just examined the rash, her and declared it was rubella and he hadnt seen a case for a while (he was an older GP).
iwish I also have autoimmune thyroiditis - why would that make a difference? I know I am immune to rubella and I had mumps so only measles I am worried about - although did have single vax as baby....
You cannot be sure without testing for rubella, but you can take anecdotal evidence. The hpa only has lab confirmed cases post 1996 on their website, you would have to take their word for it that all notifications pre 1996 were actually rubella too.
Ref talking about decreasing antibody titres for natural rubella antibodies here. Also mentions larger decreases for vaccinated individuals.
I have not said that natural immunity wanes in the same way vaccine induced immunity does. Before vaccinations individuals would have been more commonly exposed to childhood illnesses within the population post infection, thus naturally boosting their antibody levels. We see less wild type cases now so less chance to boost antibody levels and therefore natural immunity.
No just coming into contact with a new strain of a virus does not mean we would all be reinfected, individual immune response would play a part, some may be exposed and exhibit no symptoms at all.
You know they have had rubella because...?
I'm asking because rubella is so mild and transient that most times it goes unnoticed. Parents usually don't realise their babies/children have had it, and even it they notice a rash and take them to the doctor for a diagnosis, they get told that it looks like a mild viral infection and will be fine. Given that it lasts about a day and can only be diagnosed by a blood test, it is quite difficult to be sure that one has had rubella, rather than some other viral infection that would present with a very similar rash.
In fact, the only way to make sure that you have had rubella is to test immune to it. Natural immunity just doesn't wane in the way that vaccine immunity does.
And slight changes in the genotype don't mean that we will be reinfected with all of them if we come into contact, as I'm sure you well know. And we don't.
There are women who have had rubella who do not test positive for antibodies when tested in pregnancy. If antibody titres are to be taken as a measure of immunity as they are in the case of vaccines then that would imply waning immunity.
There are rare cases when people are reinfected for whatever reason.
There are multiple strains of rubella viruses differing by up to 10% in their nucleotide sequence second pdf link here. We get multiple colds and influenza viral infections in our lifetimes because the viruses mutate. It is entirely possible that we could if exposed to a strain very different to the one we were originally infected by that we could exhibit symptoms of infection. We may not commonly come in contact with them (the Mongolian strain for example) therefore not everyone would be reinfected.
As I said before, when you have a disease as a baby, immunity doesn't necessary form. I had measles twice.. DS will probably have rubella twice (he had it once, but he was only 4 months old, so I don't think he is now immune).
This doesn't mean that natural immunity waned like vaccine immunity does.
If viruses causing childhood diseases were to mutate, everyone would be reinfected.
I'm not sure what you are talking about, tbh.
That is true Cote, natural immunity is longer lasting than vaccine induced immunity. There are rare cases though of people having had mumps and rubella from the wild-type virus more than once. Viruses will mutate over time, so maybe that is part of it.
The immune system is still not fully understood, there are many factors which contribute to immunity, genetics, nutrition and stress, for example. Plus purely having high levels of antibodies does not necessarily mean immunity to a virus ref. The cell mediated response may be equally if not more important than the humoral in some cases.
I had the mmr jab in dec and jan my mum didn't want me to have it as a child. After having it I have been diagnosed as having hyperthyrodism and the mmr has been put down as a possible cause but tbh I think it was coincidence
I don't know about waning natural immunity and getting childhood diseases multiple times. Before vaccinations came along, we all had these diseases. If you get one as a baby before immune system matures, you can get it again later on (the way I had measles twice). However, once immune to a childhood disease that you have had, you stay immune. If there are exceptions, there are surely very very rare and are due to a dysfunction of the immune system.
Vaccines, on the other hand, do not provide the same level of immune response. They are great, and have obviously saved generations from the devastation of diseases like small pox and polio, but the immunity they confer is not as dependable as natural immunity to a disease our immune system has actually fought.
thankyou for explaining.
Rubella as part of MMR is 95% effective after one dose. Both vaccine and natural immunity can wane over time, naturally immune people tend to have higher antibody titres ref. It is possible to get reinfected with rubella.
There are two issues, vaccine efficacy and waning immunity.
After 2 doses of MMR protection conferred is estimated at nearly 100% for measles, measured by antibody titres (95% for one dose). That means that 5% of people vaccinated will not display levels of antibodies though to indicate immunity after only 1 shot. Hence the second shot ref. There will be a very small proportion still not displaying high antibody titres after the second shot as 100% efficacy is not guaranteed.
It is thought if you have the measles virus naturally then you have life long protection. The vaccine offers long term protection, but it may wane over time ref as an example.
The mumps component has been estimated to be between 91 to 94.6% effective even after the second shot and only with the Jeryl Lynn strain (the Urabe and Rubini strains were less effective, in early MMR and there were outbreaks in the UK in vaccinated individuals ref). Therefore even after 2 MMR shots 9 to 5.4% may not be adequately protected.
There are cases of reinfection from mumps in both vaccinated individuals (see ref above) and those who have natural immunity (1-2% suggested here though not sure where they get that figure from). There is also waning immunity shown in this study in vaccinated children.
Lisson I think these has been some suggestion that the protection from the vaccine isn't lifelong iyswim. Whereas having the illness might protect someone for longer - I don't know?
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.