to think we should ban non-vaccinated from preschool

(127 Posts)
BlackMaryJanes Tue 07-May-13 17:41:36

I saw this article today:

"Kids Who Haven't Been Vaccinated May Be Banned From Preschool"

...and I'm inclined to agree.

AIBU?

Sparhawk Tue 07-May-13 17:43:18

What about kids who can't be vaccinated? I hate anti-vaccers but YABU.

Sparhawk Tue 07-May-13 17:44:09

Plus I'm sure this thread has been done over and over again.

NickNacks Tue 07-May-13 17:44:27

I see the point but where would it stop? Ban them from the workplace? Public places?

SuffolkNWhat Tue 07-May-13 17:44:36

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Bobyan Tue 07-May-13 18:03:09

My dh returned to Britain after being abroad due to his dad's job and he wasn't allowed to attend primary school until he had received all of his injections. Its clearly not a new idea...

TattyDevine Tue 07-May-13 18:14:41

I thought the stance in this country was that every child is entitled to an education. That includes preschool. Anyone know?

TattyDevine Tue 07-May-13 18:15:48

And if you consider prechool is 2 years and above, generally, those who believe in vaccinating their children will have vaccinated children, as they are done by 13 months (until about 3 and a half when they are due a booster, which, if you believe in vaccination, you will do.

TattyDevine Tue 07-May-13 18:16:15

So YABU

scaevola Tue 07-May-13 18:18:53

The article is about an Aussie campaign. IIRC, Australia already has various measures to encourage vaccination (lower or nil rate of child benefit if you don't).

It's never been a requirement in UK state schools (private schools can set whatever conditions they like), and I think it would be wrong to limit access to education on medical grounds. And I suspect parents would be tempted to lie and it would be hard to check.

It would be simpler to legislate to make vaccination compulsory, but to police such a system would require merging of NHS records with other government records. And given the general horlicks (and data losses) fom ever bigger Govt IT and ID projects I think it would be a massive logistic fail. An unenforceable law would be a bad law.

libertyflip Tue 07-May-13 18:18:57

I think YABU because it would be punishing a child for something they have no control over.

likeitorlumpit Tue 07-May-13 18:25:30

if yours have been vaccinated what is the problem ?

thecakeisalie Tue 07-May-13 18:28:17

Even if non vaccinated children weren't allowed to attend preschool they would still be mixing in public places/playgroups so if your worried about the spread of something like measles it wouldn't eliminate the risk. As someone has said its all about creating herd immunity So in theory it couldn't spread, obviously in Wales its not really working right now and I doubt banning non vaccinated kids from preschool would have been enough to stop the outbreak (we live just over the border of North Wales)

crashdoll Tue 07-May-13 18:32:22

YABU. I'm pro-vax but no, it is not a good idea. While I may not agree with a person's choice to not vaccinate, I do still feel that it is a choice that they have the right to make.

CloudsAndTrees Tue 07-May-13 18:36:41

YABU. Vaccine damage may be incredibly rare, bit it does exist. You advocate forcing people to inject something into their child that has the potential to damage them otherwise they get denied an early years education?

You think it's ok to deny something fundamental to a child because of a choice of a parent?

Sirzy Tue 07-May-13 18:40:26

if yours have been vaccinated what is the problem ?

No vaccine is 100% effective so in theory unvaccinated children do increase the risk to vaccinated children albeit very slightly.

That said I think banning unvaccinated children is wrong and punishes the parents for a decision out of the child's control.

bigbuttons Tue 07-May-13 18:41:33

OP you are ignorant and narrow minded

LouiseSmith Tue 07-May-13 18:46:18

Why don't we ban cancer patients from being outside to we may catch that......

I seriously think we are in danger of returning to the dark ages with thinking...

infamouspoo Tue 07-May-13 18:46:52

unvaxxed children arent hotbeds of disease you know.

OhLori Tue 07-May-13 18:47:59

No, we shouldn't ban "non-vaccinated" children. All medicines have side effects and we should all have free choice whether to take them or not

p.s. If your child is vaccinated, what difference does it make to you anyway - he or she won't catch anything confused

CuntAlors Tue 07-May-13 18:51:55

My children weren't allowed to start school without signed proof from the doctor that they'd had their vaccinations. (in France)

Popcorn anyone?

likeitorlumpit Tue 07-May-13 18:54:58

thanks freddie a large coke as well please smile

youmeatsix Tue 07-May-13 18:55:16

my children are all older teens now, but i had to prove they had been vaccinated before they could go to nursery aged 3, and then all 3 had to again prove at primary school admittance, (in Scotland)

infamouspoo Tue 07-May-13 18:56:58

cheers Freddie. If I can get it through the hazmat suit protecting me from my unvaxxed child.
Dont worry folks. He cant be vaxxed for medical reasons. That makes him somehow different so people like the OP can say 'oh I didnt mean you'
grin

ShadowStorm Tue 07-May-13 19:02:10

OP, would you allow children who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons to attend pre-school?

golemmings Tue 07-May-13 19:04:15

You do know that being vaccinated doesn't guarantee you won't catch something? We've had one case of measles at our preschool. The child was vaccinated. Nothing more his mum could have done but he was quite poorly. None of the others seemed to catch it, vaccinated or not.

likeitorlumpit Tue 07-May-13 20:12:45

no point in getting vaccinated if they dont work , seems a waste of time and money .

Sirzy Tue 07-May-13 20:17:34

They do work in something like 98% of cases, in the rare cases when someone who is vaccinated does contract the disease it is generally milder.

No medication is 100% effective so perhaps we should stop giving any medicine as its a waste of time and money?

likeitorlumpit Tue 07-May-13 20:41:54

im talking about vaccinations , they seem a waste of time and money if they dont prevent a disease ,no one is talking about medication , medication is a different thing ,that is to help clear up a disease once you have it smile

Sirzy Tue 07-May-13 20:44:54

But vaccinations help to stop people getting the disease in most cases so of course they are a good thing. Your logic is rather flawed isn't it!

rambososcar Tue 07-May-13 20:45:57

I don't like popcorn. Can I have jelly beans instead, Freddie?

OP, yabu for so many reasons I can't be assed to list them.

CloudsAndTrees Tue 07-May-13 20:46:52

But in the vast majority, they do prevent disease.

Surely you have noticed that we don't regualrly have classes full of children who have lost classmates because of the diseases we vaccinate against, we have eradicated smallpox, we don't have large numbers dying because of polio, tuberculosis, measles etc?

likeitorlumpit Tue 07-May-13 20:53:20

no not really smile

notsoyoniface Tue 07-May-13 21:03:17

The way I see it is that if there is no medical reason not to get vaccinated then the child should be vaccinated. If your child cannot be vaccinated because of a medical reason then heard immunity protects them.

Vaccinations prevent illness. Has everyone forgotten about the outbreak of measles in Wales already?

CoteDAzur Tue 07-May-13 21:05:34

Freddie - I'll have some popcorn, thanks grin

There are very few compulsory vaccines in France for school admission, if anyone is interested. MMR isn't one of them. Neither is chicken pox, for example.

WouldBeHarrietVane Tue 07-May-13 21:07:11

YABU - terrible idea!

Wallison Tue 07-May-13 21:09:17

likeitorlumpit - so you haven't heard the news that hitherto common diseases have been pretty much eradicated due to the vaccination schedule? Where do you live? 1853?

Fwiw I think it should be a condition of starting pre-school. This Wales thing just shows how easy it is for a disease to take hold again due to the fucking stupidity of parents not vaccinating their kids.

CoteDAzur Tue 07-May-13 21:17:53

Hands up, those of us who have joined MN in the last week.

Even then, I don't know how you have not even seen a single vaccine thread. If you had, you would know that most of what is said here has been said, shown to be wrong or irrelevant, and the discussion has moved on many times over.

rambososcar Tue 07-May-13 21:19:38

How much would this work? The unvaccinated child may not go to a state school but can still attend a private one and mix with children there. He can still go into Tescos when his mum goes shopping, still go to soft play, the cinema, his friends' houses, parties, the shopping centre, the zoo, the library, the museum. How much do you really think that creating some form of pro-choice-in-vaccination aparthied would stop you or your child from mixing with the unvaccinated?

How do you stop yourself or your child from mixing with unvaccinated adults?

PeneloPeePitstop Tue 07-May-13 21:22:12

YABU.
Vaccination almost killed my DD. She can't have more it'd kill her.

Should she be denied an education?

NaturalBaby Tue 07-May-13 21:27:15

<tut tut> I hope you have your flame proof suit at the ready OP.

ImTooHecsyForYourParty Tue 07-May-13 21:30:41

Parent says no vaccinations. Child gets no education. Parent educates child themselves. -Is that your assumption? Well what if they don't? Child grows up unable to read, write or add up.

Future for that child without even basic skills? Is it fair to a child to deny them an education - a future, possibly the ability to earn their own living - because of a choice made by their parents at a time when they were totally unable to have any say in that decision even if they were capable of understanding it?

And unless the child is placed under house arrest, they'd be at the park, in the street, playgroups, in their friends houses, etc. So what does denying them an education help with?

I don't think punishing the child for the choice of the parent is ever the right thing to do.

5madthings Tue 07-May-13 21:30:57

Yabu parents should have a choice and some parents have very valid reasons not to vaccinate.

My ds4 currently has a mild dose of mumps as he it seems is the one in 50 children who get a mild case of mumps from the MMR vaccine, poor sod is miserable sad

WearsMinkAllDayAndFoxAllNight Tue 07-May-13 21:58:48

It doesn't matter whether you're BU or NBU. It's inevitable that sooner or later vaccination will be required for school, and probably other social provision too. We can't go on being the Isle of Contagion because of the anti-vaccinators.

AmberSocks Tue 07-May-13 22:03:20

my kids arent vaccinated,they go to pre school and the pre school know.

If they were "banned" from pre school or school i just wouldnt send them,wouldnt bother me too much,i doubt it will ever happen in this country.

AmberSocks Tue 07-May-13 22:05:15

plus the wales thing was faked,look it up,only 8 confirmed cases,over 200 were misdiagnosed.

AmberSocks Tue 07-May-13 22:07:45

plus i would be quite happy for my children to catch measles,its no worse than chicken pox for a healthy child,give me measles over a vaccine full of poison any day.

marthastew Tue 07-May-13 22:08:27

I think that they do this in France. Children without vaccination certificates are not allowed to attend state school.

HollyBerryBush Tue 07-May-13 22:10:03

I'm perplexed. Someone come and educate me please.

Hypothetical: There is A Disease doing the rounds. I am vaccinated, you are not. I am 99% safe from contracting The Disease. You are vulnerable.

Applying that logic, why should you be banned from playgroup? you cannot hurt me, I'm 99% invincible.

bigbuttons Tue 07-May-13 22:11:58

amber I agree. 5 of mine had measles last year, it wasn't an issue. I'd rather they had a good strong dose of it than the vaccine, now I know they really are immune.

Jellykat Tue 07-May-13 22:12:46

Amber i'm in Wales so am very interested, do you have a link re. the misdiagnosis?

hazeyjane Tue 07-May-13 22:12:54

The number of laboratoryconfirmed cases in the outbreak stands at 370 out of a total of 850 samples tested.

This was from the guardian, ambersocks, where does the figure of 8 confirmed cases come from?

bigbuttons Tue 07-May-13 22:13:00

but actually it is a lot worse than chicken pox as an illness. It's nasty, but short lived.

rambososcar Tue 07-May-13 22:13:56

AmberSocks - the BBC (2nd May) said, "The number of cases in the Swansea measles epidemic has risen to 1,039, an increase of 28 in the past two days."

That doesn't tally with your assertion that there were only 8 confirmed cases and over 200 misdiagnosed. I'm not being awkward, I have the same view as you on conditional vaccination and would eschew state education if it came into force, I'm just questioning the figures you've quoted.

ThePinkOcelot Tue 07-May-13 22:16:27

YABU. This is a free country is it not?! My children have been vaccinated BTW,

rambososcar Tue 07-May-13 22:17:22

"Hypothetical: There is A Disease doing the rounds. I am vaccinated, you are not. I am 99% safe from contracting The Disease. You are vulnerable.

Applying that logic, why should you be banned from playgroup? you cannot hurt me, I'm 99% invincible."

Search me, Holly, aside from the argument that we have a social, moral obligation to put the welfare of others' children (i.e. those who cannot be vaccinated) ahead of our own. <shrugs> It's not an argument which works for me, btw.

hazeyjane Tue 07-May-13 22:19:21

It remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally.

Measles vaccination resulted in a 71% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2011 worldwide.

From WHO

*As many as 1 out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, and about 1 child in every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis. For every 1,000 children who get measles, 1 or 2 will die from it.

From the CDC

5madthings Tue 07-May-13 22:19:45

cotes has said up thread that the MMR and other vaccinations are not compulsory for school attendance in France Martha

infamouspoo Wed 08-May-13 11:08:03

surely being 99% invincible is good enough? People's risk perception is seriously skewed.

Blueskiesandbuttercups Wed 08-May-13 11:20:16

Staff may not be immune,there will be a lot of vulnerable babies around at pick up,if vaccinated although unlikely you can still get it,very bad for pregnant women.....

Finally sending an unvaccinated child to a closed in high germ zone(3 year odds not known for their hygiene habits) where there could be other unvaccinated children wouldn't be the brightest thing to do imvho.

Yanbu

CoteDAzur Wed 08-May-13 11:34:42

All true for fifth disease, against which nobody is vaccinated.

YABU - there are lots of reasons for not vaccinating. It is not just black and white!

ginnybag Wed 08-May-13 11:38:57

Holly - because the person standing next to you may not be able to be vaccinated, and the mother picking up at the door may be in the middle of immune-suppressing chemo, so that contracting a virus spread by the healthy-but-infected child could be fatal.

There's an argument for 'why should I put other people's health ahead of that of my child' which is fair enough, if a little 'I'm alright, Jack', but the flip of that argument is 'why should your child's health be any more important than mine?'

It's a minefield.

The easy way to think of this is to imagine a viral outbreak as a flood and immune people - whether immune naturally or created so - as flood barriers. The more barriers, the less the flood damage. If the gaps are small enough,the virus can't get out and spread and grow, and eventually, hopefully it dies altogether.

But, not enough barriers, and there's water everywhere, which is bad for everyone - and that's what's starting happen with some virii and the uptake of immunization. Something will have to be done, because the NHS won't cope with the return of generalised measles etc, but I'm not nearly smart enough to work out what.

ginnybag Wed 08-May-13 11:40:37

CoteDAzur - do you happen to know if there's a viable vaccine for that, and what the spread rate and complication rates are?

Bear in mind that there's a lot more to deciding on mass vax programmes than it seems.

CoteDAzur Wed 08-May-13 11:46:43

No and I don't care enough to spend time researching it tbh.

What I do know is that staff in schools for small children are well aware of their immunity status for childhood diseases. It is simply hysteria to say all babies everywhere have to be vaccinated for school admission because some of the staff might be too dumb to realise they might catch a children's disease from the hundreds of children they mix with every day and have never thought of checking their immunity and vaccinating where necessary.

Chunderella Wed 08-May-13 11:58:16

The unvaccinated absolutely are a threat to everyone around them. This is because vaccines don't work on a small percentage of people, and some people are unable to be vaccinated. Of course, the immune, the very young and the medically unable to be vaccinated are also a threat, but there's nothing they can actually do about that. Doesn't make them any less of a threat, mind, and as I say this as the mother of a 9 month old. This is not a difficult concept to understand, and yet it comes up every single vaccination thread.

However OP, yabu. You would be punishing children who may already be at a health disadvantage due to being vulnerable to preventable diseases, for the decisions their parents make. That doesn't sit right with me. I understand your worry, I've got a baby who can't have the MMR for 3 months in a city with an epidemic. But I can't accept your proposal.

Chunderella Wed 08-May-13 12:00:59

I meant the immune to vaccines above btw, not the immune to the diseases themselves. Just realised that wasn't especially clear.

TheBigJessie Wed 08-May-13 12:10:18

We cannot deny education to children on the basis of their parents' decisions.

I have seen the situation Hecsy described, albeit on a slightly less extreme scale, and that was with parents who actively chose to home-educate, who weren't forced into it in any way.

* ImTooHecsyForYourParty *
Parent says no vaccinations. Child gets no education. Parent educates child themselves. -Is that your assumption? Well what if they don't? Child grows up unable to read, write or add up.

Future for that child without even basic skills? Is it fair to a child to deny them an education - a future, possibly the ability to earn their own living - because of a choice made by their parents at a time when they were totally unable to have any say in that decision even if they were capable of understanding it?

And unless the child is placed under house arrest, they'd be at the park, in the street, playgroups, in their friends houses, etc. So what does denying them an education help with?

I don't think punishing the child for the choice of the parent is ever the right thing to do.

RubyGates Wed 08-May-13 12:13:02

Again?
0/10
OP must try harder.

Chunderella Wed 08-May-13 12:30:37

That was also meant to say the unvaccinated were potentially a threat to everyone around them- obviously most people are fully vaccinated. I should really not MN whilst on hold. Saying that, even if it's only a couple of percent of people who can't be vaccinated or it doesn't work, that's still a colossal number of people.

Blueskiesandbuttercups Wed 08-May-13 13:02:21

Errr Cote I didn't have a clue I didn't have immunity to chicken pox or rubella(had it as a child and a jab for rubella),why would I?So all teachers should have blood tests to check immunity for risky diseases.hmm

Sorry but I think unvaccinated children should be banned for their own good let alone anybody else. Pre- schools are a hotbed of germs as it's often the first time many kids play in close proximity to kids and their hygiene levels are still poor.

Aside from that many mums don't ave a choice but to bring babies under the vaccinated age.

infamouspoo Wed 08-May-13 13:11:15

'The unvaccinated absolutely are a threat to everyone around them'

ONLY if they have the disease.
My unvaxxed son is in school today. Today he doesnt have measles, mumps, meniningitis, ebola, SARS, swine flu or any number of diseases. Therefore he is athreat to no-one.
Get a grip.
Unless he smacks into another child in his powerchair. But you cant vax against his erratic driving.

Blueskiesandbuttercups Wed 08-May-13 13:31:53

Today he doesn't,tomorrow he might.hmm

infamouspoo Wed 08-May-13 13:34:26

somehow I doubt it. But as I said, he cant be vaxxed for medical reasons but I really dont worry about the vaccine status of other children because he has this marvellous thing called 'an immune system'.
He's more at risk from dipsticks who send in kids with vomiting viruses and chest infections and that happens weekly.

CoteDAzur Wed 08-May-13 13:55:54

Blueskies - Do you work in a school for small children? If not, my post wasn't about you.

If you do work in a school and are not on top of your immunity situation - well, that is not very smart, is it?

Blueskiesandbuttercups Wed 08-May-13 14:02:39

Not now but I did and was unaware.

My consultant said an awful lot of people would be unaware. Rubella runs out and you can have chicken pox several times.The NHS don't waste money by continuously blood testing people to check immunity.I only found out when I became pg,then it was too late to vax.

Most of us in our 40s without red books and vague mothers haven't a clue what we've had or been vaccinated for.

Chunderella Wed 08-May-13 17:16:42

No infamouspoo, your unvaccinated DS is a threat for as long as he is unvaccinated. As blueskies pointed out, he could get measles tomorrow. Obviously I hope he doesn't. The fact that other people are cavalier about sending DC in with D and V doesn't make your DS less of a threat either, it just means that other threats exist. There's no rule saying a child can't get a chest infection then die of measles. Of course, if he can't be vaccinated for medical reasons that's unavoidable and nobody's fault. Just the same as my 9 month old DD is a threat due to her lack of vaccination against measles, mumps or rubella. Nothing I can do about that either, not yet anyway, but it doesn't change the facts. Anyone who doesn't have immunity is a threat to others who don't.

This isn't about apportioning blame or automatically accusing parents of children who infect others of being irresponsible either. My DD could contract measles and before I realised she might pass it to a child who hasn't been done for some idiotic and scientifically nonsensical reason, and kill them. Your DS could do the same. In this scenario, it would be the parents of the dead child who had been irresponsible, not us.

infamouspoo Wed 08-May-13 17:30:42

How do you know he hasnt had measles naturally? You havent asked. Youve leapt too unvaxxed = hotbed of virulent disease.

Chunderella Wed 08-May-13 17:38:52

That's true, I don't know. If he has had measles, insert any other vaccine preventable, potentially serious and contagious disease in its place. I find it rather hard to believe he's had all of them.

lottieandmia Wed 08-May-13 17:39:35

YABU

Chunderella Wed 08-May-13 17:39:59

And if he has had measles, he was a threat before he had it and during the time when he did. So yes, as an unvaccinated child he was indeed a threat.

lottieandmia Wed 08-May-13 17:45:21

Why just have this rule for 'pre-school'?

Why not school, university, workplaces, planes, GP surgeries, hospitals? The list is endless. People who can't be vaccinated should be confined to their houses. That would be sensible wouldn't it?

(hides thread)

infamouspoo Wed 08-May-13 17:52:07

quite lottie. And people over 40 who probably havent been vacinated. And people in their 20's who th vaccine has worn off. And all those who have been abroad who may have been in contact with all manner of things.

LaVolcan Wed 08-May-13 18:16:35

And people over 40 who probably havent been vacinated.

But have probably had umpteen opportunities to catch the diseases in question so might well be immune to them, but yes, confine us to house arrest just in case.

TheBigJessie Wed 08-May-13 18:31:07

Personally, I think everyone should be un-vaxxed.

www.amazon.co.uk/Vax-Multivax-Vacuum-Carpet-Washer/dp/B0041MI3W0/ref=sr_1_3?s=kitchen&ie=UTF8&qid=1368034177&sr=1-3&keywords=vax-

A Vax is for carpets. I think vaccinations are a wonderful invention, though.

rambososcar Wed 08-May-13 18:38:42

Don't be silly LaVolcan, the over 40s who were never vaccinated in the first place and who've had umpteen opportunities to catch the diseases in question can't possibly have had them, got over them and still be alive. That would spoil the argument for conditional/forced vaccination. wink

Nobody has answered the 2 questions I put here yesterday so I'll ask them again:

How much would this [proposal of conditional vaccination] work? The unvaccinated child may not go to a state school but can still attend a private one and mix with children there. He can still go into Tescos when his mum goes shopping, still go to soft play, the cinema, his friends' houses, parties, the shopping centre, the zoo, the library, the museum. How much do you really think that creating some form of pro-choice-in-vaccination aparthied would stop you or your child from mixing with the unvaccinated?

How do you stop yourself or your child from mixing with unvaccinated adults?

5madthings Wed 08-May-13 18:44:15

Oh do i lock myself up then as an unvaccinated adult... I had reactions including fits as a child so my parents were told not to give me any more vaccines.

I delayed the madthings vaccines because of family history. Ds4 currently has mumps caused by the mmr vaccine tho, hey ho i guess i know he should be immune now tho!

The best way to encourage vaccines would be clear and honest discussion over vaccines and openness over possible reactions etc. The nurse vaccinating my children didnt want to give me the leaflet detailing possible side effects... Confidence installing... Not.

Chunderella Wed 08-May-13 18:49:27

Over 40s who have had vaccine preventable diseases and survived would only spoil the argument for forced vaccination if nobody in that cohort had ever suffered death or serious side effects from said diseases. As we know that isn't the case, they don't. I'm against compulsory vaccination on principle, but the fact that the majority of people who contract the diseases would be ok is hardly the strongest argument against it. Nor is the suggestion that because we can't ban the unvaccinated from going to Tesco we shouldn't ban them from schools: the inability to control all risks is not an argument against controlling those that we can do something about. OPs proposal is wrong because it penalises children for what their parents have done, not because lots of people over 40 got measles and were fine or because soft play don't have a vax policy.

rambososcar Wed 08-May-13 19:16:37

Chunderella, I'll pass over your first comment because I hope you do know that I was being mildly sarcastic and not altogether serious.

On the second - that "the inability to control all risks is not an argument against controlling those that we can do something about" - there's still no answer as to what people think should be done about adults who choose not to be vaccinated.

You've hit the crux of the matter in your remark about control. That's what it is and nobody should have the right to control parents and/or children in this matter.

Chunderella Wed 08-May-13 19:25:49

I don't see how the inability to coerce adults into vaccination is reason not to try and coerce children, though.

rambososcar Wed 08-May-13 19:40:27

So you admit that you can't coerce adults? Good, at last someone's answered that one. So it's ok to have an unvaccinated teacher but not an unvaccinated child? Interesting.

I think it's a dreadful thing to try to coerce anyone, child or adult, to have a medical procedure against their/their parents wishes.

MummytoKatie Wed 08-May-13 19:46:03

I don't agree with the idea because it is punishing children for their parents decisions but I do see the temptation. But all children have the right to a state education including at pre school age.

Infamouspoo I don't understand why you are so anti this proposal? Unless I've got in a muddle you have a vulnerable child who can't be vaccinated? Surely you are really really pro vaccination as it is herd immunity that is stopping your child getting the diseases.

Incidentally my own position is as follows:- had rubella aged 8. Vaccinated against it aged 11. Age 29 had a rubella immunity test before ttcing dd. immune. Age 30 and pregnant had another immunity test. Immune. Age 32 decided to have a second child. Briefly debated having another immunity test but decided that would be a pointless waste of NHS resources. Age 33 got pregnant, had the immunity test, joked about being sure it was ok at the time. Result came back. I'm not immune. And nothing that can be done as already pregnant. And dd at pre school.

It has been a scary pregnancy.

Immunity doesn't always last for no apparent reason. And that applies whether you have a vaccination or the illness. (Or both like me.) According to the midwife things that mess up your immune system (such as chemotherapy or pregnancy) make immunity more likely to wear off. Just as you are vulnerable. sad

Chunderella Wed 08-May-13 20:00:58

Well, you can coerce adults I suppose. It's hardly unknown for the state to force medical treatment on people. And if vaccination were to be required for entry to public schools except with a medical exemption, there's no reason why it couldn't also be a requirement of eg getting a public sector job, claiming benefits or getting non-emergency medical treatment. The principle is basically the same, I just find it highly undesirable! No more or less so than coercing children, though. Now I don't think these ideas are very plausible as things stand (although Australia does make certain children benefits conditional on vaccination so maybe that could happen here) but nor is OPs imho.

But leaving moral objections aside for a minute as we agree on that, I still don't see any sense at all in the view that the inability to do something means we can't do anything. Banning unvaccinated and non-immune children from preschools probably would make it safer for those who are medically unable or resistant to the virus. Not as safe as it would be if the teacher had to be vaccinated or show other proof of immunity too, but still safer than the status quo. Most parents don't see their inability to protect their DC against every danger as a reason not to take what precautions they can. The principle here isn't any different.

Oh, I should add that I disagree that it's a dreadful thing to force any medical treatment on a child against the wishes of the parents. Am in total favour of eg court orders to allow the children of Jehovah's Witness parents to have blood transfusions where parents refuse consent, for example. However the bar should be when not having the procedure will lead to death or serious harm.

Wallison Wed 08-May-13 20:03:22

I am still reeling at the person upthread who said she was glad her kids had measles rather than the vaccine. I bet if vaccinations were compulsory for school entry except in the case of medical reasons not to, there wouldn't be a sudden increase in the numbers of children not being in school. Parents would just have to make the responsible choice.

wearymum200 Wed 08-May-13 20:27:52

Vaccination is a requirement for some public sector jobs: in the health service. A condition of employment is to meet occupational health requirements, which depending on role, may include immunisation against hepatitis B, chickenpox, whooping cough.
So absolutely it can be a condition of employment, but it is not coercion, it is the worker's choice whether to take the job or not.
That is different from the premise offered by the OP, where it is children, who would lose out on education because of their parents' choices. That is a much thornier question.

arareMNdadperhaps Wed 08-May-13 20:33:49

this is the way I see the vaccs issue. To me I seem that there are some issues I want to clarify. Ok, it's only my opinion but I have been listening to the various arguments for 20 years on various discussion boards.

firstly: The group of anti vaccsers is in two groups the way I see it: Those whose children cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons such as immunosupression and so on. This group DESPERATELY need herd immunity from the community.

The other group are people who have made their decisions on largely Wakefield's work and despite the thousands of published papers demonstrating through longitudinal studies and metastudies that there is NO LINK with autism. Well, I suppose you could totally ignore the consensus of medical advice (but I wonder would they do that if they had cancer and the method of treatment was the consensus of medical opinion... would they say no and pick some other method over and above the expert advice?
A couple of hours googling is not the same as being an expert in a very specific medical field.. After all, if you are going to use a lift in a building, you don;t do an engineering degree, do post grad work in elevators, then do a complete exam of the lift then get to use it... you just trust the last service engineer to have done his job properly.
That's how I see people who based their medical decisions of a bit of googling.

It is this group who should be vaccinated - by not being jabbed they weaken the herd immunity that protect those people, children, pregnant mums, the older people. They NEED it!

I know that there will be (rarely ) bad reactions to some poor soul and their family. I can't imagine the sense of anger and grief they would be feeling or how unfair it all is. But these incidents are rare, very rare and each one I hope in our protective and civilized society they will be cared for and compensated.

But I still think IMO that the risk is worth it? Look at polio - when did the last Angel of Death visit a terrace of houses to leave the young and infirm with such a terrible affliction. It's gone -no more! And that's so good, so important. Maybe we should really trust our instincts but I hope that our instincts lead us to vaccinate and get our herd immunity back to the levels we have with polio

Sorry for such a long first post and I don't want to start a flame. And, btw, all my kids were MMRed and maybe a dose of calpol was all they needed. My first was done in 1992 and then my next in 1995 - in the middle of the imbroglio, but even then, the evidence was that Wakefield did bad science.

thank you for your patience

Chunderella Wed 08-May-13 20:34:20

I was thinking more of public sector jobs as a whole rather than certain groups: for me there's a big moral difference between roles where immunity is arguably required for the job and any state employed role. But I suppose its not that big a leap from medical jobs to anything where you might reasonably expect to deal with the immunocompromised. And there are other examples of vaccination being conditional on employment. The US army is one. There are some limited exceptions on grounds of conscience and religious belief, but they don't cover everything.

frogwatcher42 Wed 08-May-13 20:38:19

I followed the party line and vaccinated all my children. However, I also had a very interesting talk with a medical professional on communicable disease about this recently.

They raised the point that measles was rife when we were kids (all my family and most of my friends had it) and yet in the UK serious outcomes were rare (they happened and I know that loads of people on mumsnet have a sister, aunt, brother etc who died or had other serious effects after having measles but in the grand scheme of things it was still rare). I showed them the WHO statistics as mentioned in this thread and the info that measles can result in a large percentage of people getting complications . Their response was that those statistics are based on World Health, and would take into account malnourished children and adults, those with poor immunity etc. I did a google search in an attempt to find data on the health implications of measles in the UK but couldnt find anything but did find this:
'Between the years 1987 and 2000, the case fatality rate across the United States was three measles-attributable deaths per 1000 cases, or 0.3%. In underdeveloped nations with high rates of malnutrition and poor healthcare, fatality rates have been as high as 28%.In immunocompromised patients (e.g. people with AIDS) the fatality rate is approximately 30%.'

Is that true? Would the stats for a well nourished, healthy population of the UK therefore be significantly different to that we are being told. Also how many of the hundreds in the wales outbreak have serious health effects as a direct result of their bout of measles - that may have implications on peoples decisions to immunise in future?

If the stats are being skewed to take into account world health, then I do think all parents should definately be given a choice. If I get my children vaccinated then the chances of them contracting the illness is small, and if they did, the chances of them getting serious complications is small too.

But then what about those children who cant be vaccinated for health reasons? Should we all vaccinate to protect them? Is this the true reason for the vaccinations? If so, should that be stated.

I really do not know what to believe.

rambososcar Wed 08-May-13 20:42:45

"So absolutely it can be a condition of employment, but it is not coercion, it is the worker's choice whether to take the job or not. That is different from the premise offered by the OP, where it is children, who would lose out on education because of their parents' choices."

That's not true, wearymum. Both are conditional. A child would not lose out on education if this proposal were made law. They would lose out on having the opportunity of having a state education. Arguably they would be put in a position of receiving a better education as a result of their parent/s declining vaccination on their behalf, but that's another story.

rambososcar Wed 08-May-13 20:49:09

frogwatcher, I'm inclined to believe that you're right.
arareMNdadperhaps, your argument fell at the first hurdle for me. Too many people assume that:

A. To not want your child/yourself to be vaccinated is to be anti vaccination. For many it isn't, it's to be pro choice.

B. That those who are not in the known^ at risk if vaccinated group must by definition hold their opinions because of Wakefield. Not so. For many, Wakefield has SFA to do with it.

redspottydress Wed 08-May-13 20:52:01

Frog, yes that's true.
Arare, are you saying vaccine damage is ok because they can be compensated?

Wallison Wed 08-May-13 20:52:06

Even if the effects are not severe, they can be life-limiting. For example, I had mumps shockingly badly which left me with tinnitus. Now, I know I'm not going to die from it but I've had decades and face decades more of never knowing silence. Plus, these diseases are just nasty to have, even if you don't have any side-effects. Why would you want your children to go through them, or to risk exposing immuno-compromised people to them, when you can avoid them with a jab of a needle?

frogwatcher42 Wed 08-May-13 21:04:09

Wallison - there can be many reasons for not wanting to give your child a vaccination. Many of the people who didn't give MMR did not make their decisions based on Wakefield or Autism. There are many children who have had other complications with vaccines such as hives, breathing difficulties etc which can put a parent off giving further vaccines to both the affected child or siblings. It can also put off other members of the extended family. And that's just one example of a reason to not give vaccines - there will be 101 different reasons for people to make their choice. Each parent will be doing what they truly believe is best for their child and if we walked in their shoes we may well make the same decision.

Its all about choice and even in my parents day some parents wouldn't give vaccines.

I think if the true main reason for vaccinating against an illness is herd immunity for those who are immuno-compromised etc,then it should be stated. The honesty would probably convince more people to vaccinate as it would be simpler to understand than for those of a certain generation who saw most friends and family have measles, mumps etc and not have any side effects (again - I know many did have side effects but as stated before it was still rare in the grand scheme of things).

bigbuttons Wed 08-May-13 21:48:06

Wallison, perhaps you are still reeling from my comment earlier, I don't know. I made my decision not to immunise based on what happened to my first child when I did. Do you think it was an easy decision? Do you think I didn't spend hours agonising over the 'right' thing to do?
Do you think that parents who choose not to vaccinate do this on a whim?
You have a very simplistic view of things.

CoteDAzur Wed 08-May-13 21:56:51

"Why would you want your children to go through them, or to risk exposing immuno-compromised people to them, when you can avoid them with a jab of a needle?"

Have you only just landed in MN? There have been zillions of very long threads on this subject, many of them in the past week, full of perfectly valid reasons that people have had for not injecting their babies with every vaccine that comes out.

CoteDAzur Wed 08-May-13 21:59:01

"if the true main reason for vaccinating against an illness is herd immunity for those who are immuno-compromised etc,then it should be stated"

They can't say that, for the simple reason that it is very clearly unethical to make a baby take the small risk of vaccine damage for the benefit of some other person.

ShadowStorm Wed 08-May-13 22:44:32

Cote - what's fifth disease? You mentioned that upthread but I've never heard of it - does it have another name?

infamouspoo Wed 08-May-13 22:58:00

'Infamouspoo I don't understand why you are so anti this proposal? Unless I've got in a muddle you have a vulnerable child who can't be vaccinated? Surely you are really really pro vaccination as it is herd immunity that is stopping your child getting the diseases.'

Because I am totally against forcing anyone to have any medical procedure. Note the word 'forcing'. Yes I have a child who cannot be vaccinated. But no, I am not scared of those diseases particualry in a healthy western child and I would not force anyone elses child to undergo anything for my child.
If I was I'd force you al to stop driving. It affects his chest. Daily.

eccentrica Wed 08-May-13 23:13:41

HollyBerryBush Do you understand that "99% invincible" is not invincible? Do you understand that if 1 in 100 children aren't immune after receiving 2 doses of the vaccine (in fact it's slightly higher), and you multiply those percentages up by the actual numbers of children involved, in the hundreds of thousands, then that's thousands of children who despite being immunised properly, are still vulnerable to catching those diseases? And therefore children whose parents have not vaccinated them stand a good chance of passing it on to those whose parents have done their best to protect them?

Would have thought that was pretty obvious really...

ReallyTired Wed 08-May-13 23:18:35

There have been loads of threads on this before. In the past I would have agreed with the OP.

However the children of unvacinated children need to attend school more. Imagine the bollox that they would learn if their parents home educated them.

ReallyTired Wed 08-May-13 23:20:33

Prehaps all unvacinated children should be offered vacinations on school entry by the school nursery.

Unvacinated secondary school children could choose whether to have the vacinations without needing parental consent. It is illogical that girl can have an abortion without her parents consenting or even knowing, but cannot decide whether she has the MMR.

arareMNdadperhaps Thu 09-May-13 00:12:28

Well, I survived without a flaming!

thank you again

infamouspoo Thu 09-May-13 11:10:03

'Imagine the bollox that they would learn if their parents home educated them.'

Oh lets add another myth. Home ed children learn bollox. I'll tell my dd at Oxbridge that then. She was home educated. hmm
She's vaccinated too.

arareMNdadperhaps Thu 09-May-13 11:49:22

I've already spotted some of you cherry picking from my comments and being a bit ridiculous ie "Arare, are you saying vaccine damage is ok because they can be compensated?"
I'm not even going to dignify that stupid comment with a reply.
...and there are others...

rambososcar Thu 09-May-13 13:24:48

"However the children of unvacinated children need to attend school more. Imagine the bollox that they would learn if their parents home educated them."

How offensive. How utterly ignorant too.

bigbuttons Thu 09-May-13 13:45:23

It was so ignorant it didn't deserve replying too, at all. imfamouspoo your dd doesn't count because she was vaccinated, it's only mine who weren'twink

infamouspoo Thu 09-May-13 14:51:17

unvaccinated AND home educated. There is no hope Big Buttons wink

Wallison Thu 09-May-13 15:32:50

I don't think the implication was that all kids who are home schooled learn bollocks, only that the anti-vaccination mob are more likely to think bollocks (going on how they talk) and thus teach their kids it. Still, it's not all bad news; their kids might end up being homeopaths. Or faith healers. Plenty of poor misguided souls out there willing to part with their money for woo-woo.

bigbuttons Thu 09-May-13 15:47:59

* wallison* would you like to think about the questions I asked you?

cory Thu 09-May-13 15:53:59

"firstly: The group of anti vaccsers is in two groups the way I see it: Those whose children cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons such as immunosupression and so on. This group DESPERATELY need herd immunity from the community.

The other group are people who have made their decisions on largely Wakefield's work and despite the thousands of published papers demonstrating through longitudinal studies and metastudies that there is NO LINK with autism. Well, I suppose you could totally ignore the consensus of medical advice (but I wonder would they do that if they had cancer and the method of treatment was the consensus of medical opinion... would they say no and pick some other method over and above the expert advice?"

I think we have to add group 3:

Those who have no medical explanation but have seen more than one child in their family deteriorate suddenly after vaccine and suspect there may be an as yet unexplained genetic weakness in their family.

Perhaps even group 4:

Those who may understand the weakness of Dr Wakefield's methods but still worry that the potential effects of vaccines are insufficiently understood: the one does not exclude the other.

bigbuttons Thu 09-May-13 16:06:18

cory I so agree and wish posters would stop putting such a simplistic spin on things.
I am distressed by all these nasty threads. The number of times I have posted about my personal experience and it has simply been ignored because it doesn't fit in with what these ignorant posters want to believe.
I wish they would open their bloody eyes and stop being so narrow minded.
With my son all the medics I came into contact with after he had his mmr agreed that something was wrong. They wouldn't say it was because of the mmr but equally they wouldn't say that it wasn't and none was prepared to spend the money and time investigating his issues. It was just damage limitation.
Maybe my other dc's would have been fine, maybe it was just my eldest, who knows, none could or would help me find out. But I wasn't going to play Russian roulette. After much hand wringing I decided to take the chance. They were otherwise very strong and healthy and I knew the chances were they would come through the measles without complications. And so they did.

I fully anticipate that this post will also be ignored by the militant pro vac brigade.

LondonMan Thu 09-May-13 17:19:44

I don't agree with the idea because it is punishing children for their parents decisions but I do see the temptation. But all children have the right to a state education including at pre school age.

Haven't read the whole thread. Chose this comment at random from many who were saying the same.

It's parent's responsibility to provide education. The state requires this and kindly helps by providing free state school places for those who choose to take them. If they fail in that responsibility, standard procedures for neglect are invoked. That could involve the state taking over parental responsibility, at which point vaccinations might take place. Simple answer really.

LondonMan Thu 09-May-13 17:20:37

If parents fail in responsibility to provide educations, I meant.

LondonMan Thu 09-May-13 17:25:59

Just to add: this doesn't mean parents would be forced to vaccinate. Home education or a school who don't require it (e.g. private) might be an option.

bigbuttons Thu 09-May-13 21:09:39

I rest my case.

themaltesecat Thu 09-May-13 21:36:15

In NZ, my daughter couldn't start nursery till she'd shown proof that was up-to-date with her immunisations.

I'm staggered that this isn't standard everywhere.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now