Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.

Delayed vaccinations- how best to proceed from now?

(96 Posts)
lou4791 Fri 02-Nov-12 12:49:40

My DD had her 2 month vaccinations at 4 months of age, and her 3 month vaccinations 8 weeks later at the age of 6 months. Due in part to me wishing to space them out a bit, and to surgery cancellations she still has not had the third lot of vaccinations. An appointment has come through for them and I am not sure how to proceed.
She is now over 10 months old so is overdue her third lot of newborn vaccinations, and due her menC and Hib, and her MMR and pneumococcal very soon. Surely having all of these so close together is now unnecessary, especially as the Pneumococcal, Hib and MenC will effectively be doubled up now.
Will my most sensible option be to decline the third lot of newborn vaccinations and continue with the 12 month vaccinations as usual?

I hope someone with a deeper understanding of vaccines will be able to offer some advise.

ElaineBenes Sun 18-Nov-12 17:38:47

It works, brycie, but it's imperfect. For the vast majority, even with herd immunity, vaccination is less risky. But there is also the component that by not vaccinating you're reducing herd immunity for everyone (impacting upon the few who genuinely shouldn't be vaccinated and the few for whom the vaccine doesn't work) so it's not just stupid but also selfish (fair enough though, I'm also selfish with resoect to my kids but people prefer to deny it rather than recognize it for what it is).

I agree with you that doing a risk analysis isn't stupid in itself, we all do it, but the skewing of risks of vaccination up and risks of disease down is stupid (which is what I see happening). Just my opinion though.

OneMoreChap Sun 18-Nov-12 18:03:43

Brycie

I have a life elsewhere, as well... so I apologise if I'm not at your immediate beck and call.

If you are a sociopath, and don't care about the society in which you live, perhaps you might choose to rely on herd immunity, despite having the opportunity to take vaccine.

As I suggested in the tragedy of the commons, the approach you appear to be espousing mean that fewer and fewer "clever" people will vaccinate. Herd immunity isn't nationwide, and appears in pockets cf. measles outbreaks in Liverpool, Los Angeles and so on.

keep your ear open for outbreaks, and then go and get a vaccine if you're worried. What's stupid about that? because that shows a fair lack of understanding as to how disease incubate, outbreaks occur?

Why was I talking about showers? A stupid man, linked to in the article, alleged that a good shower would prevent HIV. "I'll be fine relying on herd immunity" is in the same sort of order, when stupid, selfish people are deliberately reducing herd immunity.

I take it back. Your suggested course of action is not stupid. It's ignorant, uncaring and sociopathic.

I hadn't called you stupid. I believe you are vexatious and aruing a point you know to be false. If not, I'll reconsider my view; of you.

Brycie Sun 18-Nov-12 18:26:08

Hi Elaine smile yes definitely to call it selfish but it's the accusation that its stupid I'm challenging. It's really not. (As regards the selfish thing, people will just say they have the right to put their children first, which everyone does anyway - and I completely agree - usually without admitting it.)

I think the only way to convince people is to say it's the best thing for their child. It doesn't make sense at all to ask people to risk their child for other people's children. People vaccinate to protect their children, and the herd immunity thing is just an extra reassurance when they get nervous about the risk. If the risk is greater than the benefit they wouldn't do it and nor should they, so vaccination is just as, maybe not selfish, but self-driven, self-centred, if you see what I mean.

Calling people sociopaths is just grin NEVER going to be taken seriously.

Onemorechap - I really don't mind what your view of me is smile as you are so randomly insulting people it doesn't matter.

Yes, I think people who don't vaccinate look out for early symptoms and keep their ears to the ground about uptake and outbreaks. Except for the (few) people I know who just don't vaccinate anyway and wouldn't mind if nobody vaccinated at all. I mean, they even went to "dangerous" countries and didn't vaccinate, so they don't really count in terms of the herd immunity thing.

Brycie Sun 18-Nov-12 18:28:14

Can I just say, hi Bruffin, I remember you from another thread and didn't mean to be rude just now - you caught some of my snarkiness which may or may not have been aimed elsewhere and people who may or may not have been dishing it out and may or may not be able to take it. grin

JoTheHot Sun 18-Nov-12 19:11:24

Keeping your ear to the ground for outbreaks might work if you're not one of the ones that gets infected first. Relying on herd immunity, when you don't have to, is stupid in the same way as living in a block of flats and relying on your neighbours' smoke alarms.

Brycie Sun 18-Nov-12 19:30:44

Not really - you can add up all the various risks, the risk of getting it, the risk of suffering permanent damage from it, the risk of being the first one to get it, the risk of being the first one to get it with no outbreak anywhere nearby or in known contacts etc, and definitely come to the conclusion that herd immunity confers a worthwhile benefit. I mean let's not forget Jo - herd immunity is worth something. It's supposed to work.

JoTheHot Sun 18-Nov-12 20:00:52

Herd immunity isn't supposed to work. It does work.

Your analysis is incomplete. Concluding that herd immunity confers a benefit is but one part of one side of the risk analysis. To rationally not vaccinate, you need to conclude that the residual risk, after taking into account herd immunity, is less than the risk of vaccinating. At current levels of vaccination, this is not the case.

Brycie Sun 18-Nov-12 20:41:04

So if it works, why is relying on it as stupid as relying on your next door neighbour's smoke alarm?

Brycie Sun 18-Nov-12 20:45:46

I think this is the problem, saying herd immunity works, and then saying it's stupid to rely on it, is going to convince no one. To convince people you have to really focus on the fact that it's a benefit for their own chld because the herd immunity argument sort of goes a bit nowhere.

JoTheHot Mon 19-Nov-12 07:45:00

Why have you drifted into benefits to the individual vs society (*in bold*)? This is irrelevant to what you and I are discussing: the role of herd immunity in a selfish individual-focused risk analysis.

I think it's quite a simple concept that herd immunity provides an imperfect level of protection, and as such it does not mean that vaccination is automatically not beneficial to the individual. I think that you and most non-vaccinators understand this, despite your faux-pleas to the contrary. I think someone is stupid if they can't understand that protection is not all or nothing, that their neighbour's smoke alarm gives some protection, but not enough, and that herd immunity gives some protection, but sometimes not enough.

Brycie Mon 19-Nov-12 07:59:42

I'm saying it's irrelevant if you want to convince people to vaccinate. If you say herd immunity works, but it's stupid to rely on it, you're contradicting yourself,k and people won't take you seriously.

Read my posts: I'm not a non vaccinator. In fact due to travel my children have had more than they otherwise would.

Brycie Mon 19-Nov-12 08:14:15

smile you also assume that people can't work out that when authorities sy you need x level of immunisation in a population to acheive herd immunity, then when x level is occurring, herd immunity is either achieved or not. In which case it offers very good protection, or someone's not telling the truth. The fault comes with assuming people are stupid, which is a very bad idea in this kind of conversation. You're also assuming that people don't realise that all parents behave in a self/self-centred/self-driven way when it comes to vaccination. As Elaine said, it's true that people don't always admit it, even to themselves. But it doesn't stop it being true.

Brycie Mon 19-Nov-12 08:16:27

"I think it's quite a simple concept that herd immunity provides an imperfect level of protection, and as such it does not mean that vaccination is automatically not beneficial to the individual. I think that you and most non-vaccinators understand this, despite your faux-pleas to the contrary. I think someone is stupid if they can't understand that protection is not all or nothing, that their neighbour's smoke alarm gives some protection, but not enough, and that herd immunity gives some protection, but sometimes not enough. "

In other words this type of explanation is a much better way of approaching the situation, except for calling people stupid (not necessary) and also of course the assuming things about people which are wrong and the personal remarks.

Brycie Mon 19-Nov-12 08:16:29

"I think it's quite a simple concept that herd immunity provides an imperfect level of protection, and as such it does not mean that vaccination is automatically not beneficial to the individual. I think that you and most non-vaccinators understand this, despite your faux-pleas to the contrary. I think someone is stupid if they can't understand that protection is not all or nothing, that their neighbour's smoke alarm gives some protection, but not enough, and that herd immunity gives some protection, but sometimes not enough. "

In other words this type of explanation is a much better way of approaching the situation, except for calling people stupid (not necessary) and also of course the assuming things about people which are wrong and the personal remarks.

bruffin Mon 19-Nov-12 08:31:51

If you say herd immunity works, but it's stupid to rely on it, you're contradicting yourself,k and people won't take you seriously.

Herd immunity is not supposed to be there for people who just want to take the risk. It's there for people who real medical reasons for not vaccinating. Herd immunity works in those situations as long as every one is on board, there is no contradiction. Look at whooping cough, before the vaccine was first bought in the deaths from WC in their first two months of life was 3500 a year (US) once the vaccine was bought in, those deaths in children too young to vaccinate went down to as low as under a hundred in 2 years.
That is herd immunity working, those that cant be vaccinated were being protected by those that can. But if everyone took the decision to rely on herd immunity, then the vaccine rate drops and there is no herd immunity for the those who need it.
The reason that you rely on herd immunity can be stupid, or sensible depending on your starting position.
If you have a legitimate medical reason for not vaccinating ie allergy to a componant then it is not stupid to have to rely on herd immunity because you have no choice.
To deliberately play games and assume that everyone else is vaccinating therefore you do not have to, is stupid because if everyone made that decision then there would be no herd immunity to rely on.

Brycie Mon 19-Nov-12 08:37:40

It doesn't matter what it's supposed to be there for. As I said earlier, herd immunity doesn't discriminate between people who aren't vaccinated for different reasons, ignoble or other wise. It just works anyway, as Jo pointed out.

"To deliberately play games and assume that everyone else is vaccinating therefore you do not have to, is stupid because if everyone made that decision then there would be no herd immunity to rely on. "

It's not stupid - first of all you wouldn't have to assume, and second, it would take a long time for all herd immunity protection to wane, so you can continue to recalculate the risk. So for example if you want to delay some vaccinations but aren't opposed to them, you could work out that you're 95 per cent safe to do that, and run to the doctor if you hear of an outbreak.

You can call it selfish, of course, but all parents have the interests of their children at heart (I certainly did and I took the opposite decision). You don't do it for other people's chidlren, you do it for yours. So you can say it's a selfish decision, but not stupid.

Personally I think that's why uptake is lower in better off areas. Some groups are more "obedient" to the greater authority of the doctor, HV etc and others have worked out that's the case so will rest on that.

Brycie Mon 19-Nov-12 08:40:25

Anyway tbh I'm in agreement about the most basic principle and only got involved in this conversation because of the insulting generalisation of a poster above. It's really pointless and counter-productive. In fact I've had this exact same conversation with Elainebenes before (although it wasn't her being sweeping, I can't remember) but I was quite shocked by the nature of it and just thought, whoever is going to listen to this? But then I suppose if you don't really want to convince people it doesn't matter, it's only an internet forum so it's not like the parliament of the nations smile

OneMoreChap Mon 19-Nov-12 10:30:20

Yep;

I believe you are vexatious and aruing a point you know to be false.

I don't have to convince anyone; my children were vaccinated, as was I.
As, I believe, were yours. So you're arguing on behalf of some purported non-vaccinators? Fine, argue their case by yourself. You have no skin in the game.

My kids didn't run the risk of illness, nor of infecting a pregnant woman with German Measles. Why would I care about that, anyway?

I don't have to coo nicely and say well, it's good for everyone and try and convince you to take a risk with your child's health. If you don't vaccinate, their risk is greater.

As you say, this isn't a parliament, and my views are as valuable as yours; though I suspect rather better informed.

JoTheHot Mon 19-Nov-12 17:31:09

Brycie I find your writing difficult to decipher. For instance, you quote my comment on herd immunity, then beneath it you write:

"In other words this type of explanation is a much better way of approaching the situation, except for calling people stupid (not necessary) and also of course the assuming things about people which are wrong and the personal remarks."

Yet, my explanation didn't say anyone was stupid, didn't assume people are other than they are, and didn't include any personal remarks. I know you are a self-appointed pagwatch-inspired politeness enforcer on vaccine threads, but beyond that I don't know what you are saying, and so can't reply to it.

You also seem to find my prose difficult. "you and most non-vaccinators" in no way implies you are a non-vaccinator.

Brycie Mon 19-Nov-12 21:06:56

That's quite lucky you don't want to convince anyone onemorechap smile a little less disappointment in the world grin

Jo I'm sorry it was when you said "I think someone is stupid.." obviously you weren't referring to a specific person. I thought you meant you believed people who rely on herd immunity are stupid, like onemorechap - apologies. Also I'm sorry I misunderstood "you and most non-vaccinators". Maybe I am finding your posts a bit difficult to decipher but it's not deliberate.

Except I've just seen! you made up for the lack of personal remarks with your "self-appointed pagwatch-inspired politeness enforcer"! If Pagwatch is a politeness enforcer too then hooray I'm a fan! However I am actually an actual person with an actual separate and independent mind. It might shock you that two people have independently come to the conclusion that it's better to be reasoned than insulting but in that case prepare to be shocked!

OneMoreChap Mon 19-Nov-12 22:37:19

Brycie Thanks for that; that has at least made me smile.

You have certainly convinced me.
Sadly, it's about comprehension and vexatiousness.

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