My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

General health

Why is a cold winter likely to influence how severe measles is?

42 replies

Socci · 13/10/2004 11:01

Message withdrawn

OP posts:
Report
popsycal · 13/10/2004 11:02

you have reminded me - book ds's single jabs
thanks

Report
Easy · 13/10/2004 11:05

Socci

I have asked my doctor whether my ds is likely to catch measles. He isn't vaccinated, I want him to catch it young to get natural immunity with minimal risk.

My GP says there isn't enough measles out there in the community for it to be likely he'll catch it.

So much for the Govt. propaganda. They just want to make us follow their route.

Anyone's child got measles please?

Report
Northerner · 13/10/2004 11:08

My friends little girl got measles this year. It isn't something I would wish on my child.

Not sure why a cold winter makes a difference, but I do know measles is more common in the late winter.

Report
bakedpotato · 13/10/2004 11:20

my dd had measles at just over a year. it was just at the time when MMR debate was really ferocious, so we were worrying about what to do.

no idea where she got it from: bus? Playgroup? We're in London in an area where mmr takeup is lowish, but it didn't seem to fit in with an outbreak, acc to GP. it wasn't pleasant. brief high temp, general miserableness etc. also had to quarantine her. i'm not sure how contagious it is, as several kids she'd been mixing with before the diagnosis didn't get it (thank god)

so we went down indiv jab route. (had the rubella but have had hell of time finding mumps vaccine. it's in v v short supply)

Report
Easy · 13/10/2004 11:20

No northerner, I know it isn't pleasant. But it is safer if a child is younger (as long as they are not weakened in some other way at the same time), and we still have no guarantee that vaccination gives life-long immunity, meaning that you can go on to catch it when older, when it is more likely to leave permanent damage

Report
edam · 13/10/2004 11:22

no guarantee that catching a childhood disease gives you life-long immunity either. is not 'superior' to vaccination in that sense. dh had mumps four times!

Report
mothernature · 13/10/2004 11:23

Dr Hilary says: A measles epidemic could occur this winter due to a drop in children being immunised with the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, it has been claimed.

Experts from the Health Protection Agency, the Government's public health watchdog, predict that parts of Britain are at risk of an iminent measles epidemic on a scale not seen for more than 30 years.

MMR jab uptake decline

Nearly a decade ago 92% of under-twos had the MMR jab - but since the controversial research which linked it with autism was made public that number has dropped to just 80%.

In some areas it's as low as 60% and outbreaks of measles have already been seen.

Latest MMR research

The latest large-scale study, published in The Lancet medical journal, concluded that there was no evidence to support a link between the combined vaccine and autism in children.

But confidence in the jab remains low - well below the 95% recommended by the World Health Organisation - despite the efforts of health officials to reassure the public.

HPA's concerns

Reporting the HPA?s concerns, Pulse, the medical publication, said that poor immunity meant an average of 15% of children and adults would be admitted to hospital if infected by measles.
As well as having a rash, people with measles can suffer serious complications such as meningitis and pneumonia. It is more common for eyes and ears to develop a secondary infection needing antibiotics.
Infectious disease experts believe that London alone has 350,000 susceptible youngsters under-16 and could face an epidemic of many thousands of cases.
The HPA is working with public health officials in London to formulate an emergency plan to stop measles spreading. Some parts of London have already seen outbreaks of the infection.
Before vaccination started in the late 1960s, Britain had about 800,000 cases and 100 deaths a year from measles.
Vaccination rates rose from about 50% in 1968 to 76% in 1988. These had led to a steady decline in measles cases. The introduction of MMR in 1988 caused a further increase in the vaccination rate. This wiped out measles as an endemic disease. But people continued to bring the virus into Britain from abroad, causing small outbreaks.
There were 71 measles cases in 2001 and 308 in 2002. The largest outbreak affected about 100 people.
The Current situation with measles in the UK

So far this year, numbers of measles cases are still at relatively low levels; there were 150 confirmed cases in the first half of 2004 compared with 296 cases in the same period in 2003. It is also encouraging to see that uptake of the MMR vaccine is now about 80% at two years of age.

However, due to the drop in MMR coverage after 1998, there is a large and growing group of children who haven?t been vaccinated, and who are therefore at risk of catching measles.

Dr Hilary says:

"It's inevitable that they'll be an epedemic because you've got an ever enlarging pool of non-vaccinated children. I'd say to anybody that MMR is safe - there's no evidence that it's not.

"The only people who stand to suffer are the children. This could be as bad as the whooping cough epidemic in the seventies when children died."


Still don't know why its worse in winter, maybe something to do with being indoors more - more likely to transfer droplets that way - as it attacks throat glands first.

Report
Angeliz · 13/10/2004 11:25

bakedpotato, my dd has waited 2 years for the mumps jab and the clinic i'm with are catching up now from the backlog of 2002!!
Luckily it's not one i'm overly worried about. Having had her tested recently for antibodies it turns out she's not immune to anything execpt rubella so makes me wonder about the vaccines anyway!!!!
Socci, sorry don't know any answers to your question but Easy, isn't that intersesting about the G.P. If you'd gone in asking for the single jab i bet he'd be full of how dangerous it was!!!

Report
Angeliz · 13/10/2004 11:28

That's another thing i wory about too, wether she's gonna catch something dangerous later on in life. (I worry about everything!! )

Report
bakedpotato · 13/10/2004 11:30

angeliz, i saw your posting about this elsewhere, and felt sure i'd misunderstood.

so your dd had the indiv vaccine for measles, and isn't immune? wha-at? is that as likely to happen with mmr as with indiv jabs?

what are you going to do?

Report
Angeliz · 13/10/2004 11:33

well, that's why they give the boosters as apparently a very small amount of children won't have enough antibodies from the first doses. With the baby jabs (diptheria and tetanus) she is low and am still waiting to get results from pertussis and polio and the measles i was just told she's NOT immune !!
(I tested her for them all to see if she actually needed any boosters but was quite suprised meself even that only rubella has worked so far!!) I said to DP, It would be really interesting to see if they did tests on ALL pre-school children to see how many ARE immune after all, they say a very small percentege won't be!!

Report
Socci · 13/10/2004 11:39

Message withdrawn

OP posts:
Report
Northerner · 13/10/2004 11:42

I can uderstand why doctors say that. They know, more then any of us, the devastation that diseases such as measles can cause.

I agree that for some people immunisations are not the right thing to do, but for the majority they are.

Report
Jimjams · 13/10/2004 11:42

as easy says this is govt propaganda. They always talk about so many % of children haven't had the MMR blah blah blah so therefore at risk of meales- and NEVER take into account how many have had single jabs. They also do this every year- around this time out comes the govt scare stories.

Like Easy ds2 is getting to an age where he may as well catch measles- I doubt he will though so will have to decide what to do when he gets to pre-teens.

As for the whooping cough epidemic mentioned by Dr Hil- there's someone on mumsnet whose ister was left permanently brain damaged following whopping coough vax- scaring people into vaccination will never work whilst they continue to deny that vaccine injuries a)occur and b) they start to compensate properly for it. ignoring collateral damage doesn't make it go away and doesn't do anything for public confidence.

There rant over.

Edam there is no guarantee from catching something naturally (and natural immunity will be decreasing as people stop getting regular exposures to these diseases- as regular exposure acts in the same way as a booster). However natural immunity is generally more reliable than vaccination.

Report
Jimjams · 13/10/2004 11:44

until they start to compensate for it properly??? Whilst they fail to compensate for it properly? I know what I mean!

Report
Skate · 13/10/2004 11:51

If my new baby suffers because other people haven't vaccinated their children I'll go f*ing mental.

Why oh why oh why oh why - is everyone happy to believe the government's judgement of safety on every other drug they give their child and not this one?

Report
Jimjams · 13/10/2004 11:56

what about children like my ds1 who have been vaccine damaged? Why should I risk my NT ds2 to protect your baby?

Report
Socci · 13/10/2004 11:57

Message withdrawn

OP posts:
Report
Jimjams · 13/10/2004 11:57

and drugs companies and govts etc are more willing to accept the serious side effects of other drugs (although it often takes years for those to come to light).

Report
coppertop · 13/10/2004 11:58

No drug is 100% safe for everyone. People know their own children and medical histories a lot better than the government do.

Report
Angeliz · 13/10/2004 11:59

Well said Socci!

Report
Skate · 13/10/2004 12:10

Jimjams - I'm really sorry about that, I didn't know and can fully understand why you wouldn't want to go down that route again.

I don't agree that the government tries to cover up anything with regard to vaccines. I worked in drug safety at the MCA and sat on CSM meetings and every drug is considered exactly as the next. In fact the MMR vaccine had it's own Working Party set up (probably still does) and each case that comes in is thoroughly reviewed (this happens for all drugs but in more depth for drugs that are black triangle or considered high priority).

Socci - the MCA/CSM monitors SPC's/data sheets for ALL drugs, including vaccines - it's not up to the drug company to say what goes on it and what doesn't. Vaccine datasheets are dealt with in exactly the same way as other drugs.

I understand that some parents will choose to have the single vaccine and go and do it, but an awful lot won't and that worries me.

I think I'd better leave this thread now because it's bound to get heated and I don't want to end up offending anyone. I can understand that everyone has their own point of view and their own reasons for making their choice but obviously everyone's primary concern is their own child (hence I understand your stance on it jimjams and have no argument with you on it).

Obviously it terrifies me that my 6-week old child could get measles. If I could have him vaccinated now, I would.

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

Jimjams · 13/10/2004 12:25

skate - you would not want to vaccinate a 6 week old child with a live measles vaccine- you would be increasing his risk of getting SSPE. Measles antibodies are excellent at crossing the placenta- if you had measles as a child (I did) then your son will have very good protection from that up to about a year. If you were vaccinated and you still have antibodies then you will have passed that protection on.

As for committees etc this previous thread (about thimerosil but the principals are the same) Makes interesting reading. Also I knew 2 and a half years ago that there was ongoing research into thimerosil and autism, and the recent Columbia paper has left it too hot too be left in routine childhood vax- yet what do the govt say? The risk is only theoretical and has nothing to do with the change in baby vax - to the 5 in 1- that is only a polio issue. Yeah right- they would do themselves more favours if they told the truth more often- however unpalatable (potentially expensive?) that truth may be,

Report
Jimjams · 13/10/2004 12:27

Actually skate I've said on here before my biggest concern about the MMR vaccination policiy as it stands is that it leaves infants at risk. When everyone was exposed to measles as growing then the majority of infants were very well protected- now who knows? They'll need to introduce a boooster in late teens soon imo. Otherwise babies will start getting it.

Report
jabberwocky · 13/10/2004 12:31

We have been searching like mad for the single jabs here in the US and no luck so far. I even wrote to the pediatrician in Louisiana who wrote a book about vaccines and recommended the singles and evidently she isn't doing it right now either. I think it's because of a backorder with Merck. Anyway, after much soul searching dh and I have decided we will probably wait until ds is 2 next year and if singles are still unavailable go on with the MMR. It still makes me v nervous to think about.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.