Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications, experience, or professional qualifications of anyone posting on Mumsnet Talk and cannot be held responsible for any advice given on the site. If you have any serious medical concerns, we would urge you to consult your GP.

Death toll rises

(167 Posts)
stargirl1701 Fri 30-Nov-12 11:50:01

The number of babies under 3 months who have died from whooping cough this year has risen to 13. Just so awful. My thoughts are with their families today.

GeorgeCauldron Sat 01-Dec-12 11:35:21

Yes, it's awful. Really awful. And preventable.

Funny how the anti-vaxxers - who are so keen to parade their concerns for children - never express any sympathy for those who are killed or disabled by vaccine-preventable diseases or for their families. I suppose that what's happens if you need to stop reality and the consequences of your own actions intruding on your conscience.

Tabitha8 Sat 01-Dec-12 16:02:58

There was an article on the news last night saying that uptake of the whooping cough vaccine is high and that it's the lack of circulating virus that's causing a problem as we don't all get natural boosters.

RooneyMara Sat 01-Dec-12 16:08:42

This is really sad, but was there any need for the utterly grim title?

I don't think that scaring people stupid is the best way to persuade people to have the injection - presumably those who are reluctant have other reasons than wanting their kids to die.

LilQueenie Sat 01-Dec-12 16:39:47

GeorgeCauldron I think that is a bit ott dont you?

stargirl1701 Sat 01-Dec-12 17:03:41

Same title as on the BBC website. How else would you describe it? It's baffling the medical profession from what I've read. WC vax levels are high. Just a tragic situation IMHO.

StickEmWithThePointyEnd Sat 01-Dec-12 17:06:13

But it's an utterly grim subject. You can't add some glitter and butterflies to this discussion to make it better can you?

bruffin Sat 01-Dec-12 17:11:56

The uptake maybe high now, but i suspect there is significant part of the population unvaccinated from the 1970s when there was a vaccine scare about whooping cough.

Sabriel Sat 01-Dec-12 17:18:40

From the bbc website.

"Health experts do not know why the outbreak is so large this year, especially as vaccination for whooping cough is at record levels.

Another idea is that tight control of whooping cough is part of the problem. People's immunity to whooping cough is boosted throughout life by being regularly exposed to it.

However, after years of low levels of whooping cough the whole population may have been left more vulnerable to the infection."

I have no axe to grind as all of my DC have had the WC vax, but that reads as if it is the vax causing this increase? Children from the 1970s would be in their 40s now so I can't see the link there bruffin.

bruffin Sat 01-Dec-12 17:43:32

Adults would be catching it mildly and passing it on. Most people born in the 70s would be in their mid thirties answer still having babies and mixing with young children. The rate was as low as 30% in the 70s.

bruffin Sat 01-Dec-12 17:47:50

I'm not saying that is the entire reason, but his has to be part of it

RooneyMara Sat 01-Dec-12 18:16:03

I would say, deaths from whooping cough are up. Or more children have died from whooping cough. Or something just very slightly, subtly less dramatic.

I'm not talking about 'butterflies' (really?) but there's just no need to create (or copy) a dramatic headline and something like that will make people react with fear.


LilQueenie Sat 01-Dec-12 18:22:23

just out of interest when we talk about percentages in the 70s and now, is it taken into consideration that the population may be higher/lower (probably the latter) when these percentages are worked out. bringing numbers down to simple units here. pop of uk in 70s 1000. population of uk now 3000. a percentage of 10% in the 70's is obviously quite different to 10% of now.

stargirl1701 Sat 01-Dec-12 18:46:15

I disagree. I was incredibly fearful for my LO (now 12 weeks) before the 8 week vax. I restricted visitors and didn't go to groups because there is a WC epidemic this year. The more publicity the better. Fear can be useful.

WC regularly killed 300 people a year before vaccination started. I thank God that I live in a country where my child is vaccinated for free. Watching the programme Four Born Every Second (as part of the BBC poverty series) made me so grateful for the NHS.

RooneyMara Sat 01-Dec-12 18:51:51

Weren't you offered the vaccine? Was it not brought in till it was too late for you?

RooneyMara Sat 01-Dec-12 18:53:02

So you did want to make people frightened? Sorry I don't want to have an argument.

stargirl1701 Sat 01-Dec-12 19:38:30

I was too late for the vaccine. I had given birth before the govt offered the vaccine. I was very fearful of losing my LO. 2 babies locally were in intensive care with WC since she was born - one only 5 weeks. Knowing this changed my behaviour. I had intended to pop into work to let folks meet her but I didn't until she'd had her first vaccination. Really restricted visitors at home - no one with a cough. I was pretty mean smile

RooneyMara Sat 01-Dec-12 19:39:11

I understand. I would be the same. smile

The op has behaved very sensibly in the face of a serious epidemic. I have no problem with the title. There IS a death toll due to WC and it is rising. Coverage of that frightens people but then it will also raise awareness and save lives.

bruffin Sat 01-Dec-12 22:39:34


They dont work out the rates like that. Its not based on the whole population of the uk. When they say 95% coverage for a year it means 95% of the cohort due to be vaccinated.
The birth rate was slightly higher in the 1970s with only 30% of those being vaccinated
nowadays with a lower birth rate but around vaccination rates in the 90 %s So they say high vaccinate rate meaning the majority of the babies are being vaccinated now, not the whole of the population.

Firelighters Sun 02-Dec-12 09:06:44

I've heard the pertussis vaccine can increase vulnerability to parapertussis? Is this true?

Tabitha8 Sun 02-Dec-12 21:21:14

If all the babies born in the 1970s had been vaccinated, wouldn't their immunity have worn off by now, just like with the newer vaccine? The older vaccine was more effective, but would it also have lasted longer? For 40 years?

The favourite theories (and there is evidence for both) is that the vaccination is not lasting as long as it should or that whooping cough has mutated so the vaccination no longer protects (this is surprising in a way with whooping cough - more so than for some other diseases that are vaccinated against, but possible - it is well worth reading the work coming out of Andrew Read's lab if you want to understand more about the selection pressures imposed by vaccination). And yes Firelighters it does seem to increase parapertussis infection.

Unfortunately despite some of the hysterical (in tone) posts at the beginning o the thread, sorting out the current problems with whooping cough is unlikely to be as easy as vaccinating anyone who hasn't been vaccinated. They don't seem to be the driving force behind these outbreaks.

In the states the infection rates have been particularly high in vaccinated ten year olds and teenagers (the booster given in the States age 11 doesn't seem to be doing it's job? For whatever reason). Therefore most have concluded the problem is with the aP jab (older people received the wP) - although it's not yet clear why.

Australia and the States have been struggling with whooping cough outbreaks for the last few years, so their data is a good place to start if you want to find out what is going on (rather than shout about how it must be stupid people who don't vaccinate driving the outbreaks - unfortunately the evidence suggests otherwise).

stargirl1701 Sun 02-Dec-12 22:42:55

I hadn't realised the vaccine had changed. I assumed my LO had had the same vaccine that I had had as a child.

No, it changed to a safer form (the aP). It is safer - there are fewer seizures etc associated with it than the one we had (the wP). I do find it interesting that there seems to be no desire from anyone to return to the wP - which was used for years - my eldest had it for example in 1999.

I think the aP came in here in about hmm 2002ish iirc, 2003 maybe. Australia and US were earlier (so interesting also that they have been grappling with w/c outbreaks for a few years longer than us - does suggest something problematic with protection afforded by the aP.

Having said that there were whooping cough outbreaks in the early 2000's as well as ds2 was exposed as a baby (didn't catch it) but probably had it in 2004/2005. At that time they were blaming mutation - but maybe it was parapertussis. Hmm, no idea.

bruffin Sun 02-Dec-12 23:01:16

Australia had a huge problem with pockets of unvaccinated for years.
What ever the cause vaccination is still responsible for the protection of the most vulnerable by herd immunity. Without vaccination the US would be seen many thousands of deaths in those too young to be vaccinated as it was pretty vaccine days instead of the few 100 it is today.
Parapetussis is considered a milder disease.

Presumably herd immunity doesn't seem to be working at an acceptable level at the moment - which would be why they are vaccinating pregnant women - for direct protection. They also found cocooning wasn't particularly successful (if you google you may find the reference).

Of course the real issue with whooping cough is the number of babies catching it. I'm still not clear on how long passive immunity for w/c lasts in newborns (which of course is relevant if adults no longer tend to have immunity).

bruffin Mon 03-Dec-12 00:38:56

Its still a lot better than not vaccinating. The issue has always been babies catching it
As I pointed out above up until they started vaccinating 3500 babies (US figures under 2 months old died from whooping cough a year. It went down to less than 200 in 10 years in babies too young to be vaccinated. I cant find out how many deaths there are been in the states this year but it looks like a tiny fraction of what it was. The only figure I can find is 9 deaths up to July .

The Uk used to have 600 to a 1000 deaths a year prior to vaccination, so 13 is still far too many, but it shows that vaccine is still working, whether you like to admit it or not.

ElaineBenes Mon 03-Dec-12 00:54:45

Exactly bruffin. The vaccine works although not as well as had been expected.

Although it is also true that the driving force between the outbreaks of whooping cough is the waning immunity rather than non immunisation (which admittedly doesn't help but isn't the main cause of most of the current outbreaks).

bruffin Mon 03-Dec-12 00:57:39

I never said it was the main cause but it must play a roll somewhere.

ElaineBenes Mon 03-Dec-12 01:06:31

No, I know you didn't. Sorry, just my own musing!

'must play a roll (sic) somewhere'

I would be KILLED for that sort of statement. Evidence? What is clear is test the best way of protecting your individual baby during their most vulnerable period is vaccination of them (or presumably our prgnant self). That's not the same as vaccination status in older age groups affecting or not affecting w/c transmission rates in a population with high levels of waning immunity or a mutated pathogen or different active strain.

bruffin Mon 03-Dec-12 07:59:52

"I would be KILLED for that statement"
well you do talk an awful load of rubbish a lot of the time.

bruffin Mon 03-Dec-12 08:01:16

Its common sense, any unvaccinated people will affect herd immunity, especially when there are pockets what ever the age.

Do I bruffin, do I? At least I don't just make stuff up because I'd like to believe it

Incidentally other studies have shown lower efficacy rates.

More from the CDC - note as I said above, vaccination seems the best way to protect an individual infant - but isn't helping much at population level.

CaseyShraeger Mon 03-Dec-12 08:23:44

But it's also true that vaccination is at record levels but so is the incidence of whooping cough (well, higher than at other points over recent years when vaccination rates were lower). So you could equally say that it was "common sense" that the remaining small unvaccinated population wasn't having any measurable impact on herd immunity (given that you can still catch it and pass it on if vaccinated, just (normally) in a less-severe form, is herd immunity even a particularly useful concept when dealing with whooping cough?). Bear in mind that among older populations, if you weren't vaccinated against wc you generally caught it at some point so have immunity today at least as good as if you'd been vaccinated.

Fortunately, science depends on evidence-based testing of hypotheses rather than rival notions of "common sense".

FWIW I was vaccinated as a child but still caught wc in adulthood and passed it on to newborn DS in 2005. DH was unvaccinated but had "wild" wc as a child and didn't catch it even with me and DS both coughing all over him for weeks. But that's anecdote rather than data.

bruffin Mon 03-Dec-12 09:18:27

Am not making it up You have made plenty of stuff up over the years

As I said above its babies that need to be protected as they are the ones that die from it. On a population level

I think you've misunderstood what that is saying bruffin. Yes the individual risk is higher to unvaccinated children (it would be a bit worrying if it wasn't!) but at a population level unvaccinated children are not the driving force behind babies being infected. My first link is bang up to date - from last week. It addresses the question directly.

news@JAMA: Initially, some hypothesized that California’s pertussis epidemic was being driven by unvaccinated individuals. Do your data support this

Dr Misegades: Our data don’t support that. Unvaccinated individuals made up approximately 8% of cases and about 1% of controls. We didn’t see that unvaccinated children were driving the epidemic, but they did have a higher risk of pertussis infection than those who were vaccinated.

As far as I am aware I haven't made anything up over the years. confused I tend to link to peer reviewed journals, some may be later found to be wrong, but it's hardly me making stuff up.

Brycie Mon 03-Dec-12 11:02:45

Bruffin that's a horrid thing to say to jimjams. Who is ever going to listen and take seriously?

Brycie Mon 03-Dec-12 11:06:28

Also it's counter productive to start talking about common sense (!). Links, links. I've had people say to me it stands to reason / common sense that MMr triggers autism because autism rates have gone up since it was introduced and lots of parents say it happened to them. It MUST play a role, they say. Once you've gone down the "common sense / stands to reason" road everything goes hazy and you can't then say "yes but look at the evidence, you can't just rely on common sense."

CoteDAzur Mon 03-Dec-12 11:25:47

LOL @ accusations of JimJam talking "rubbish".

How have you posted on MN for two years and not realised that JimJam is extremely well-informed on this subject, and has in fact been involved in formal research into it?

You should apologise.

Ah not quite this area cote (autism in general - rather than vaccination) - I don't think my blood pressure could stand it grin (I don't want to be accused of making stuff up!!)

CoteDAzur Mon 03-Dec-12 12:39:11

I have come across you in various threads over many years and been impressed on numerous counts with the depth of your knowledge. It is frankly quite incredible that you would be accused of talking rubbish. You are one of the few (if not only) person on vaccination/autism threads who talks facts and research rather than newspaper articles and hearsay.

Aww thanks Cote.

samie10 Mon 03-Dec-12 17:21:00

Hear, hear cotedazur....

ElaineBenes Mon 03-Dec-12 17:47:12

Sorry for interrupting the love fest but I don't get what the problem is. Everyone is saying the same thing, no?

Of course the more unvaccinated people you have, the more likely it is that pertussis will spread. But Bruffin actually said that it's not the main cause behind the current outbreaks, just that vaccination levels play a role (which they do - it certainly matters a lot if vaccination rates are declining or increasing or staying stable).

If you have declining vaccination rates together with waning immunity, you've got a double whammy as your susceptible population will increase even more. It doesn't look like this is the case in the majority of current outbreaks but certainly where vaccination rates are high, the outbreak will be more limited as you'll have a relatively smaller susceptible population.

Basic principles of herd immunity! What's the disagreement on?

Brycie Mon 03-Dec-12 19:42:19

Do we have declining whooping cough vax rates Elaine? I'm not so sure about that. I thought even the DoH says it's nowt to do with that.

stargirl1701 Mon 03-Dec-12 19:44:15

What are the long term implications of the drop in MMR vaccinations that we saw recently? A major outbreak in 30-40 years?

ElaineBenes Mon 03-Dec-12 21:59:18

No, rates aren't declining, Brycie. It's the not the driving factor behind most of the current outbreaks of whooping cough. My point in my previous post was Bruffin was right in the sense that vaccination rates CAN play a role (and also said that it's not the main cause of the current outbreaks) .

Whether you increase the suscepitble population through waning immunity or through non vaccination, the effect is the same.

IF vaccination rates decline, the outbreaks would be even worse because there would even more susceptible people.

It's an important distinction, I think, because it has an impact on the solution (let's just not vaccinate because it's not worth it vs let's give boosters to pregnant women and older kids to boost immunity).

Brycie Mon 03-Dec-12 22:09:22

If they're not declining it can't be afactor at all can it? I'm no statistician (never a truer word) but if vaccination rates were the same whether there was an outbreak or no outbreak then they can't have anything to do with it. It can't be any cause never mind the main cause. What about the other type of whooping cough - I suppose it can't be that bad or they might be offereing a vaccine or research into a vaccine.

ElaineBenes Mon 03-Dec-12 22:18:51

It's a factor in the sense that the higher the vaccination rates, the lower the probability of the outbreak.

The point is that not being the main cause doesn't negate the fact that keeping vaccination rates high still decreases the likelihood and severity of any outbreak even if immunity decreases faster than expected.

I don't know much about the other type of whooping cough either, just also heard that it's not as bad and much less likely to have complications.

CoteDAzur Mon 03-Dec-12 22:28:17

If vaccination rates of babies are at levels, than the outbreak is clearly not about vaccine refuseniks. It is about low immunity in the rest of the population - whether via waning vaccine immunity or pockets of unvaccinated.

"Vaccination rates are 'not the main cause but must play a roll [sic] somewhere' " doesn't mean anything in a context where vaccination rate is at record high.

This is important to point out because of the knee-jerk reaction of "Ooh those terrible anti-vaxers" that got touted from the 1st reply to OP on this thread.

ElaineBenes Mon 03-Dec-12 22:47:41

Unfortunately, people who don't vaccinate can no longer rely on herd immunity to protect their own babies. Probably explains the increasing rates of vaccination. I suspect the same pattern will occur any vaccine preventable disease which recurs since it's easy to forget, as a society, how nasty they are

The fact that it is not decreasing vaccination rates which explain the current outbreaks of pertussis does not detract from the irresponsibility of not vaccinating (against medical advice of course), both from the individual and community perspective.

Actually a big problem for herd immunity (natural and vaccine induced) is removing circulating disease from the equation. Doesn't mean vaccinations shouldn't be used, but does mean that those in charge of public health should be aware that waning immunity is likely to become an increasing problem. Of course this will vary from vaccination to vaccination.

Probably explains the increasing rates of vaccination. Evidence please? One reason that the rate of pertussis vaccination may have increased is that with the introduction of the aP it became impossible to get a tetanus jab (for example) for children without pertussis. Also groups for whom the wP was contra-indicated (e.g children with epilepsy) were able to receive the aP.

Incidentally I never think about herd immunity in relation to my children, I tend to think that by not vaccinating ds2 or ds3 they're at some sort of increased risk of catching the disease. This idea that people who haven't vaccinated are going round saying 'ooh it's okay because of herd immunity' is frankly bizarre. I've never met anyone who thinks like that, and it shows a complete lack of understanding as to why people refuse or delay vaccinations

Welovecouscous Mon 03-Dec-12 23:46:53

Presumably a lot of people in the 70s who weren't vaccinated against wc have had wild wc?

I was given all vax except wc as my mum's GP surgery were not offering wc as they thought it unsafe. I promptly caught wc as a baby and was pretty ill.

ElaineBenes Tue 04-Dec-12 01:10:50

Really saintly? So you made the decision not to vaccinate without considering the probability of being exposed to the disease in question?

I find that quite astonishing, especially since I remember you said that you think it was a viral infection which triggered your ds's autism.

How can you rationally weigh up the probability of death/disability when you haven't actually calculated the probability of not vaccinating which by necessity has to include the effect of herd immunity (even if only because if only partial, the effect will be to shift up the average age of infection).

Welovecouscous Tue 04-Dec-12 01:40:48

Elaine, Saintly is saying the opposite, that she did consider the risk and would assume unvaccinated children were at greater risk.

Do you have to be so sneering?

ElaineBenes Tue 04-Dec-12 02:08:58

No one is sneering! what did I say that was sneering? I certainly didn't sneer so you can stop with the dramatics.

Saintly explicitly said that she did not take into consideration herd immunity when deciding whether or not to vaccinate her children.

Of course unvaccinated children are more likely than vaccinated to contract a disease. That goes without saying, but the probability of contacting a disease is dependent on herd immunity.

I don't see how you can do a risk analysis of the benefits of vaccinating or not if you haven't even considered one of the key components determining the risk. Especially if your strategy to maximise your childrens health is to minimise exposure to all viruses, whether live attenuated or dead.

ElaineBenes Tue 04-Dec-12 02:20:41

Or rather the probability of being exposed to a disease is dependent on herd immunity, the probability of subsequently developing the disease is depending on your immune status. If you haven't considered probability of exposure than you can't work out the overall probability. That's all.

Oh Elaine stop being do obtuse. I meant that while my children remain unvaccinated I assume they are at higher risk of catching the disease than if they were vaccinated. Clearly this actual risk varies from disease to disease, but I rather assume for exam

Hate this frigging phone. I rather assume that if they meet measles they will get it. For example. (I don't assume the same of meningitis C, as that is slightly more complicated).

Anyway, I'm not going to go through each one. My point was that I didn't leave ds2 and ds3 unvaccinated thinking 'ooh hooray now I don't have to take any risk I can have all the benefits'. The thought process you ascribe to most people who don't vaccinate. Instead, like most of my friends it's a decision I worry about, a decision that I believe does lead my children at higher risk of catching the diseases in question. Unfortunately in our house 'health' is slightly more com

Slightly more complex than avoiding measles. Or mumps. Or even polio.

I am concerned about the research that is showing that mass vaccination (for some vaccinations at least) increases the severity of disease for unvaccinated individuals (compared to pre-vaccination days) and I keep an eye on it.

bruffin Tue 04-Dec-12 08:00:16

I am concerned about the research that is showing that mass vaccination (for some vaccinations at least) increases the severity of disease for unvaccinated individuals (compared to pre-vaccination days) and I keep an eye on it.

Really, nothing to do with those that are unvaccinated tend to be the most vulnerable and more likely to get severe forms of the disease in the first placehmm

No Bruffin Now this is more likely to be seen in a vaccination that doesn't give full protection. It;s early days for this sort of research, but one of the scientists involved rasies the possibility that it might be a factor for things like pertussis (which of course is problematic if the reason you haven't been vaccinated is because you are 6 weeks old).


Andrew Read's TEDMed talk is worth watching for anyone interested in this area.

Brycie Tue 04-Dec-12 10:28:45

Hi Bruffin there was a link showing that if you have pertussis vax you are more vulnerable to parapertussis. However parapertussis is much milder and not as common though it is more dangerous in babies under six months. But it's not considered as bad in any way as Elaine said as whooping cough.

Brycie Tue 04-Dec-12 10:29:45

Sorry - I meant to say the parapertussis whooping cough is not in any way as bad as the pertussis whooping cough.

JoTheHot Tue 04-Dec-12 10:53:02

SJJ You always cite Read's work to support your concerns about vaccination leading to the evolution of increased virulence. This is fine. Yet his work also shows that vaccination can equally lead to the evolution of reduced virulence. As does a host of other theoretical and empirical research. You never mention any of this. Why is this? Are you unaware of it or do you not mention it deliberately? Perhaps it's simply not 'interesting'?

No Jo, I mentioned it because Elaine was going on about assessing risk for my children. If you look back you will see exactly the context in which is was mentioned. It would have been a bit bizarre to go on about decreasing risk at that time.

bruffin Tue 04-Dec-12 10:58:31

Brycie that is not what I am referring to at all. When there is anything outbreak ie like measles in Europe last year, it sometimes appear that the rate of severe complications have gone up. This is not because the disease has got worse as the antivaxers say, but because there is a greater percentage of people catching the disease are in the vulnerable category who may be more susceptible to severe disease. It's not the disease getting worse.

This older paper provides a good summary and this is free access (presumably similar to the first one).

I find it all interesting. As you know. Which was why I lined to his TED talk as well.

Bruffin there is a difference between someone who is unvaccinated showing more severe disease than someone who develops a disease due to partial vaccine failure (total vaccine failure would be the same as unvaccinated) and more severe disease resulting from a pathogen evolving to become more virulent as a result of vaccination practices.

Now my understanding is that for things like measles etc it is unlikely that increased virulence would evolve as a result of vaccination practices. So I was interested to see the scientists involved in the research suggesting it could be relevant for things like pertussis.

JoTheHot Tue 04-Dec-12 11:17:58

I don't follow. Why is the potential for disease severity increasing relevant to your analysis, whereas the potential for it decreasing not relevant? They both seem equally relevant to me.

Similarly, you say you don't incorporate herd immunity in to your calculation, yet the analysis can't be done without an estimate of probability of infection, which is itself a function of herd immunity.

You're analysis appears to include the negative effects of vaccination, whilst excluding the positive effects.

bruffin Tue 04-Dec-12 11:19:51

"Bruffin there is a difference between someone who is unvaccinated showing more severe disease than someone who develops a disease due to partial vaccine failure (total vaccine failure would be the same as unvaccinated) and more severe disease resulting from a pathogen evolving to become more virulent as a result of vaccination practices."

What are you going on about, that makes no sense whatsover!

I have said nothing about comparing vaccine and unvaccinated in the epidemic. I said that the severity of the disease appeared worse because of the greater percentage of vulnerable people catching the disease.

I thought it was odd when the link was to work on parasites!

Hopeagainsthope Tue 04-Dec-12 11:28:25

I just hope medical practice has moved on from when my DD had whooping cough ten years back. She was getting iller and iller and one night she was very poorly indeed and had been "whooping" for a day or two, and vomiting and throwing herself at the walls in asphyxiation panic. I wanted her seen by a doctor to see if she needed to be admitted to hospital. I explained on the phone I was pretty sure she had whooping cough (but was not medically qualified to say) and asked if a doctor could come out as I didn't want her to infect anyone but they insisted I brought her in. They said children didn't have whooping cough any more. So we drove to the out of hours surgery where we sat in a waiting room with a TINY baby (? few days or so old - def too young to have been vaccinated). I told the receptionist I did not think my DD should be in the same room but was told to sit down and wait my turn. I stayed as far away as possible but it was probably only 4 metres or so. An hour or so later, we got to see the emergency doctor who immediately diagnosed whooping cough as DD had a paroxysm there and then in front of him on being moved. I still pray that tiny baby was not infected. I think GP practices are not used to dealing with infectious diseases so much any more....


OK final time, then I give up

a) Elaine comes out with her usual idea that people don't vaccinate because they know they're hitchiking a free ride using herd immunity

b) I point out that this isn't a factor in decision making in the cases I know. For example I think that in not vaccinating against measles that leaves ds2 and ds3 at higher risk of catching measles than ds1 who is vaccinated. In other words I don't rely on the concept of herd immunity to go around feeling all super safe and untouchable. I rather assume my children will be exposed at some stage (and in the case of measles get it - as that's what tends to happen with measles exposure).

c) I then say however, if diseases increase in virulence as a result of vaccination practices then I would consider that to be important. So for example I think it reasonably likely my children might get measles. I believe it highly likely that they would not suffer long term effects (and yes yes I know all about measles damage - my mum is permanently damaged from measles blah blah blah). However, if future research showed that measles disease was increasing in virulence as a result of vaccination practices (actually unlikely in the case of measles for reasons described in the papers above - I'm just using measles as an example as it is so contagious) then obviously I would factor that into decision making.

Hope - the same happened to me when ds1 (who has been vaccinated) had suspected measles. We were told to wait in a crowded waiting room, I suggested that wasn't sensible and got moved to a room with a baby. Presumably it wasn't measles in our case, but it seemed a stupid thing to do before diagnosis.

JoTheHot Tue 04-Dec-12 11:35:43

but you wouldn't factor it in if measles became less virulent? Why not?

Well then the risk from measles disease would be less. Obviously. Why would that make me think about vaccinating my children? Which is what we were taking about. Given that we're running the risk of the diseases in the first place because of family history, if a disease decreases in virulence that's hardly a reason to vaccinate children who are believed to me more susceptible to vaccination damage than the average child.

Hopeagainsthope Tue 04-Dec-12 12:35:30

Saintly: exactly the same - kids with possibly serious infectious diseases should not be in the waiting room, or a room with a baby (!). I am glad your DS1 didn't have measles btw.

JoTheHot Tue 04-Dec-12 12:45:09

I'm sure you don't need me to explain why any future analysis needs to take account of all changes, not just changes which shift the decision in favour of vaccination. Perhaps virulence reduces a little, but at the same time herd immunity drops a lot, thereby justifying a switch to vaccination.

Trying another approach; how would you feel if I habitually posted on vaccine threads to observe that a wonderful side-effect of vaccination is it's capacity to reduce disease virulence in unvaccinated individuals, and I cited Read's nature paper to support this. I'm pretty sure, you'd be hot on my heels to say I was presenting a partial view.

No I wouldn't.

Remember when I had a child I believed to be at average risk of damage from a vaccination I vaccinated. If I only had children who I believed to be at average risk I would presumably vaccinate.

ElaineBenes Tue 04-Dec-12 14:53:33

I never said anything about you hitchhiking a free ride Saintly. I think you're projecting again (a little bit rudely and snidely but I'm used to that).

Point is that you can't do a risk analysis without actually being able to estimate risk.

Unless you've assumed a probability of 1, ie that your children WILL get whatever disease you're vaccinating against!

Which means you've assumed your children will get measles, polio, mumps, diptheria, Hib, pertussis, flu etc.

And you still think it's riskier than getting the vaccine?! On what evidence????

You said once that your doctor said that your kids will probably be fine being vaccinated and probably be fine not being vaccinated. S/he's completely right, unvaccinated kids don't keel over like flies, of course not. But I'd guess that a lot of the 'probably be fine not being vaccinated' is based on the premise that your children won't be exposed to the diseases in question. Presumably s/he would advise differently in the face of a diptheria epidemic.

I'm pretty sure you said as well at some point that your strategy is to reduce exposure to any potential pathogen as you think any illness could be a trigger. Given that you also said you'd researched this a lot and had the support of your doctors, I thought that made sense to me.

But then if that's the case, not taking into account the protective effect of herd immunity in reducing exposure to pathogens is completely irrational. I really don't understand your thought process regardly the probability of exposure.

You'reremarkably interested in my family history. It's a bit intrusive tbh. The doctor's comments regarding vaccination were made before we (or they) had full understanding of the extent of ds1's brain damage. Other doctors have said other things since. Iirc I was using that example in a rather different way than in relation to the decisions we finally made.,

JoTheHot Tue 04-Dec-12 17:22:54

The question has nothing to do with the details of your family. The question is: when you evaluate the pros and cons of a vaccination, do you consider the probability of catching the disease? If you do, as you surely must, you implicitly incorporate the level of herd immunity in your decision.

I think the confusion perhaps arose because you thought Elaine was talking about explicitly including herd immunity in your analysis.

I do not factor herd immunity into my decision. I suspect I somewhat over estimate the risk of catching (say) measles. For something like men C I assume the risk of catching that is low, but not due to herd immunity, because the risk of developing men C is low anyway and was in pre-vac days. It's particularly low at the moment because of their age. By the time the kids are in the next risk age group for men C they will be able to decide for themselves whether they want it anyway.

I have never met anyone who would say (as Elaine suggested) 'oooh herd immunity isn't working anymore, I've changed my mind vaccinate please'. Because generally, the people I know do realise that by not vaccinating their child may well get the disease.

This was what I was replying to - to clear up the apparent confusion.

Unfortunately, people who don't vaccinate can no longer rely on herd immunity to protect their own babies. Probably explains the increasing rates of vaccination. I suspect the same pattern will occur any vaccine preventable disease which recurs since it's easy to forget, as a society, how nasty they are

I believe this shows a lack of understanding as to why people refuse or delay vaccinations.

I stated earlier other reasons why vaccination rates may well have increased (no available tetanus without aP, people for whom wP was contraindicated being able to receive aP).

JoTheHot Tue 04-Dec-12 18:11:50

If, as you say, you have estimated the risk of catching measels, by definition, you have incorporated herd immunity. The dynamics of a disease can not under any circumstances be calculated without the density of susceptibles, and the density of susceptibles is the overall population density multiplied by the level of herd immunity (definition).

I don't think you understand herd immunity.

I don't think you understand what I am saying. Read Elaine's comment, read my reply. If you don't understand never mind.

I assume if my kids come into contact with measles they will get it. I assume the likelihood of them coming into contact with measles is high enough for it to be reasonably likely, they're still unvaccinated. Because herd immunity (presence or not thereof has not played a role in my decision making)

That's it, nothing more complicated. As for why we headed down this track read (again) Elaine's comments about parents rushing out to vaccinate once they realise herd immunity is doomed doomed doomed.

Have a nice evening ladies - I give up, can't be clearer than that). although feel free to actually read my posts which clearly state my position.

ElaineBenes Tue 04-Dec-12 18:20:41

Just trying to make sense of what you're saying saintly.

I don't why you find it intrusive when you've made these comments on a public forum on threads on which I was actively engaged. I guess I have a good memory.

And it is true that unfortunately people can no longer rely on herd immunity to protect their own babies against pertussis. This applies to those whose babies are too young to be vaccinated as well as those who choose not to vaccinate later.

And I absolutely think that as soon as vaccine preventable disease start coming back and children start to die, vaccination rates will go up (as indeed we see with pertussis). You disagree (because you don't think people take into account the probability of actually being exposed to a disease as you didn't do so!). Fine.

I disagree because I actually talk to people who haven't vaccinated about their reasons why. Rather than make assumptions.

Given that vaccination rates are the been highest they've ever I'm surprised you think all these vaccine preventable diseases are going to appear again.

*ever been

ElaineBenes Tue 04-Dec-12 18:25:21

BTW, it's not just the probabiltiy of exposure which is affected by herd immunity. It's also the average age of infection which goes up when there is a herd immunity effect. Since measles is usually worse in older children and adults and since herd immunity for measles isn't so great, chances are that unvaccinated kids are going to get measles but will get it at an older age when it'll be more severe.

But if you don't take herd immunity into account, then of course this won't be an issue but if you pretend it doesn't exist then it won't affect you hmm

ElaineBenes Tue 04-Dec-12 18:27:28

No, most vaccine preventable diseases shouldn't reappear if vaccine rates remain high. I agree with you. So hopefully such a scenario won't happen.

And in the meantime you, and your friends who don't vaccinate, will benefit (for the most part) from herd immunity even though you don't believe in it.

Not taking something into account in my decision making doesn't mean I pretend it doesn't exist. It's just not part of the decision making As you well know, I mean that I do not rely on herd immunity to assume my kids are protected, I assume they are at risk from the disease, presumably rather over estimating their risk of actually getting measles. I would have thought you would approve of that approach.

I am well aware that measles becomes more dangerous at puberty which is why - if you search my posts you will find i have previously said ds2 might have a measles (single) vaccine at some stage. This decision is based on severity of disease vs risk of severe brain damage (basically the two issues I am interested in). Yes indeed the severity does increase for measles and so the decision - for ds2 in particular - may change. I have always been clear about that on here. Stated again although largely irrelevant to this thread.

ElaineBenes Tue 04-Dec-12 18:38:18

But that's why it doesn't make sense! If you've assumed exposure, then, yes, you have over assumed the risk. Which means you're saying:

danger from disease < danger from vaccine

Which is totally wrong by anyone's calculation other than, say, extreme cases of allergy

Rather than

Probability of exposure*danger from disease < vaccine

Which I'd also say would generally not be right although if the probability is very small and you think, for whatever reason, that risk of vaccine is high then it possibly could work.

And it's not just measles, right? What about diptheria for example? What's your assumption regarding exposure? Did you assume they'd be exposed?

Elaine I have never said I don't believe in herd immunity. Why wouldn't i believe in it. Do read what I said. I said I do not take into account that my children are likely to be protected by herd immunity when I make my decision. When I make my decision I assume that whether herd immunity is high or not they are still able to catch the disease. I make decisions based on the fact that by not vaccinating then they are at risk of catching the disease.

That does NOT mean I don't 'believe' in herd immunity. If it protects them, great, but I don't assume it will and I'm in some sort of win win situation. Rather, I assume we have a lot to lose.

:waits to be purposefully misunderstood again:

Yes I do believe the risk from the vaccination for them is very high.


Otherwise they'd be vaccinated wouldn't they. Like ds1.

ElaineBenes Tue 04-Dec-12 18:55:31

I appreciate that you believe the risk of vaccination to be high. I also appreciate that by ignoring herd immunity, you've assumed 100% probability of exposure to the disease.

However, this is the bit which doesn't make sense: the risk of the disease is also very high (or at least that's what you've assumed since you've assumed that the likelihood of exposure is the same as without herd immunity)! This is especially true for some of the diseases we vaccinate against like diptheria. So I don't see how you can say 'I've assumed my child will be exposed to diptheria - since I ignore herd immunity - but I still believe it safer to be exposed to diptheria than to be vaccinated'.

I mean, for measles, it's a fair assumption given the high rates of vaccination needed for herd immunity to assume that at some your kids will be exposed to it.

But that's not the case for diptheria.

So I don't see how you can say that you've ignored herd immunity unless you've assumed pre-vaccination incidence rates for all the diseases you haven't vaccinated against. It doesn't make sense.

Welovecouscous Tue 04-Dec-12 19:54:27

Saintly, your posts were crystal clear to me.

Tabitha8 Tue 04-Dec-12 20:28:32

Ditto Welovecouscous.
Saintly Would you like me to lend you my wall that I often bang my ahead against? Come to think of it, I expect you have one of your own already.

ElaineBenes Tue 04-Dec-12 21:53:10

Well, perhaps the enlightened ones can explain it to me then

Ignoring herd immunity means that you assume your exposure to infectious diseases (say measles, mumps, diptheria, polio, hib etc) will be the same as pre-vaccination, ie very high.

On what evidence is being exposed to diseases according to pre-vaccination incidence higher than being vaccinated?

Other than a rare and very severe allergic response, the vast majority of the rare severe vaccine reactions are due to the immune response and would also occur even worse if exposed to the live pathogen.

ElaineBenes Tue 04-Dec-12 21:53:38

Oh, can I borrow that wall tabitha? I often feel the same on these threads.

On what evidence is being exposed to diseases according to pre-vaccination incidence higher than being vaccinated?

Oh ask something sensible - no-one has suggested that.

bruffin Tue 04-Dec-12 22:17:46

I need that wall as well.
We shouldnt have to constantly ask for the research to back up claims, that doesnt come from Natural News, Whale or quacks who have cashed in on scaremongering about vaccine.

Elaine is spot on with this

"Other than a rare and very severe allergic response, the vast majority of the rare severe vaccine reactions are due to the immune response and would also occur even worse if exposed to the live pathogen. "

Did you read any of my links bruffin? They were all from science journals or articles.

WTF does Elaine know about risks to my children. Has she seen my son's medical notes? No. Has she conversed with his paediatrician? No. Has she spoken with his neurologist? Not that I'm aware of.

Wild claims aren't coming from this side of the fence.

BTW I seem to be the only person to have posted links on this thread (from a quick scan) so your concern about Natural News et al appears to be imaginary.

ElaineBenes Tue 04-Dec-12 22:29:18

No, it's not good to start talking about individual cases. I don't want to go down that route. You have your own doctors and of course they're the ones to advise you.

I'm just basing things on what you yourself have said. But you're right that it's not and it shouldn't be a discussion of your own child's medical file and issues!

That said, I still find it hard to believe that you think that being exposed to diseases is according to a pre-vaccination incidence rate (ie without herd immunity) is less risky than being immunized.

But if you say that you've assumed no herd immunity at all (so pre-vaccination levels of diptheria, measles, mumps, hib) and that is still less of a risk than being exposed to disease, well, OK. Go for it.


Is that clear enough for you?

This is about decision making when you are stuck between the risk from the disease (rock) and the risk of regression (BTDT) following a vaccination (hard place). You don't say 'nah I won't bother with all that, herd immunity will protect my child so I don't need to worry'. (As you rather suggested up thread). Rather you assume that in leaving them unprotected you risk the disease, and you have to decide how you would feel about an exposure. If you can't live with the idea of that risk then you have no choice but to vaccinate.

Clearly you have never seen a regression, and do not quite understand what a child loses when they regress into severe autism. Or your would understand why we're not all skipping merrily into the sunset safe in the knowledge that herd immunity will protect them, or merrily jabbing away, whichever. Oh how I'd love that certainty of believing i had a child capable of making it to an independent adulthood whatever life threw at their immune system. I did once. It was short lived.

But carry on twisting away. If you must.

ElaineBenes Tue 04-Dec-12 22:53:58

I don't like the idea of any child becoming ill or disabled or dead, whether through brain damage, stroke or whatever. I'm sure a child brain damaged by measles isn't nice to see. Oh, actually I know they're not because I know such a child who is indeed not capable of independent living (she can't hear either btw).

I didn't say you think that the incidence of disease is the same as pre-vaccination. But you said that you ASSUME it to be the same since you ASSUME no herd immunity. I often assume things I know not to be true or likely for various reasons. Nowt wrong with that. But if you assume no herd immunity, then clearly you assume a risk of exposure with no herd immunity?

Although, as you say, you're clearly inflating the risk of exposure to disease (whereas many people who don't vaccinate seem to downplay the risk of disease) in this way which makes it even harder for me to understand your decisions. I mean, you're effectively saying that for your children being exposed to the disease is safer than being vaccinated. Well, if your doctors agree with you, I'm certainly going to argue but I'd guess that your doctors do assume herd immunity when they advise you (why wouldn't they!?)

You don't seem to think that children damaged by vaccine are quite a worthy of the same support as children damaged by disease though. Which is kind of odd. Knowing kids who belong to both categories it's not always easy to tell the difference.


ElaineBenes Wed 05-Dec-12 01:07:14

Umm, no I never said that. Can you please point out where I allegedly said such a horrible thing?

Disabled children and their families are entitled to full support regardless of the provenance of their condition. Should I say that again?

Really, you make things up to find offence! I think because you know what you said about herd immunity makes no sense so you make something offensive up instead. Won't be the first time, hey ho.

You can have your biscuit back.

What you said I said about herd immunity makes no sense but I am going to have to give up on that.

I have never even seen you accept that children ( other than theoretical ones that don't actually exist) are ever damaged by vaccination. But we've done that before at great length. You've had ample opportunity on this and other threads to ask those with vaccine damaged children why they don't vaccinate, but you never do. You just tell them they're wrong. Even in the cases where the doctors have clearly supported the parents decision. You've done it here, a little 'well of your doctors say so but i don't understand your decidion making', without access to family history or notes, how breathtakingly arrogant.

This whole conversation started because of your suggestion that once herd immunity stops protecting their children (which please note, was your suggestion of something that will happen, not mine) parents will all be rushing out to vaccinate and I said that won't happen because it doesn't reflect WHY people choose not to vaccinate (ime of you know, of actually talking anf listening to people about why they don't vaccinate).

I posted about regression - because given that my unvaccinated children share 50% of their genetic material with their brother the trigger to his regression is kind of important. I used that to explain (again) why people in this position take decisions not to vaccinate (Nothing to do with herd immunity). And you come out with damaged child top trumps. Yes, given the school my son goes to we know children damaged in all sorts of ways. Other people's tragedies are not relevant to decision making for my children in the same way as ds1i's regression is as he's the one we share genetic material with.

Brycie Wed 05-Dec-12 08:04:52

I don't find the decision not to vaccinate in those circumstances difficult to understand. I can't imagine people do really. This debate could be less polarised and it would be an improvement. People get stuck in a pro- or anti- camp - often simply labelled by their "debaters" - and then they seem to think it's impossible to "cave" a point one way or the other. It wouldn't be caving, it would just be a sensitive conversation on a sensitive subject.

CoteDAzur Wed 05-Dec-12 09:02:14

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Brycie Wed 05-Dec-12 09:08:22

Are you talking to me? I said I don't find it hard to understand.

CoteDAzur Wed 05-Dec-12 09:11:23

Yes, I immediately realized I misunderstood your post and asked for mine to be deleted but MNHQ isn't up yet, it seems.

Brycie Wed 05-Dec-12 09:14:07

Ok no problem. I think it's important to listen to individual experiences, myself. What's right for my child might not be right for other people's and I don't see the danger in accepting that.

JoTheHot Wed 05-Dec-12 12:47:33

It's one of life's uncomfortable and unforgiving realities that individual experiences tell you very little about risk. I don't think anyone would disagree that different children respond differently to vaccines. With the benefit of hindsight, you can say a vaccination was right for one child and wrong for another. The question is to what extent you can know this in advance.

ElaineBenes Wed 05-Dec-12 12:50:43

Here we go with the dramatics. Saying you don't understand something is generally not considered breath taking arrogance. You must have a very low bar for having your breath taken and live with extremely humble people.

I've always said I don't judge individual decisions. If I had a child I believed to be vaccine damaged, I'm not sure what I'd do. What i do criticise is the evidence on which these decisions are based when people present it.

I certainly didn't do any 'damaged child trumps', what a rather perverted way of thinking. But then again you also accused me of not caring about disabked children because of how they may have acquired their disability with nary a shred of evidence. You're shooting off perceived offences which exist only in your mind.

You've explained your reasoning many times. Assuming there is no herd immunity still seems bonkers and irrational to me. If you're avoiding all triggers whether vaccines or live pathogens then herd immunity is a very good thing for you. I don't see what it's so difficult for you to recognise.

ElaineBenes Wed 05-Dec-12 12:54:24

Oh, I've also never said that vaccine damage can't happen. Vaccines are medicines, they can have side effects just like any other medicine, and these side effects could be severe. some vaccines are safer than others, its not a homogenous group of medicines.

It's just any long term damage from side effects from the modern childhood vaccines in the developed world is very rare. It can happen, of course, but highly unlikely.

Brycie - I agree. I am always mildly amused to see myself described as 'anti-vaccine'. Given that I was so anto-vaccine I did vaccinate.

It's just any long term damage from side effects from the modern childhood vaccines in the developed world is very rare. It can happen, of course, but highly unlikely.

This, I presume is why you don't believe the people you meet on these threads who have experienced it. (We have done that one before, at length). It only happens to theoretical people.

With the benefit of hindsight, you can say a vaccination was right for one child and wrong for another. The question is to what extent you can know this in advance.

I quite agree. Which is why I pay such a lot of attention to what happened to ds1. It's very relevant to his siblings.

ElaineBenes Wed 05-Dec-12 14:18:06

I always find it mildly amusing to be called 'pro-vax'. After all, I haven't given my children rabies, japanese encephalitis or yellow fever vaccinations.

This, I presume is why you don't believe the people you meet on these threads who have experienced it. (We have done that one before, at length). It only happens to theoretical people.

You're projecting, AGAIN, saintly. Despite my breath-taking arrogance, I don't think it's my place to question people's own accounts of events which happened to them. I have never done so (you can search if you like but I believe I have been consistent in this).

In fact, anyone who understands inferential statistics knows that they are based on a probabilistic paradigm. Statistics are probabilities and individual stories of vaccine damage are events. The evidence may (and does) suggest that these events are highly unlikely but that does not exclude the (very small) probability that they occur. Furthermore, nothing in science is absolute.

Again, despite my breath taking arrogance, it is important to be open to the idea that the current evidence is wrong, science is evolving. Again, it's highly unlikely given how much the topic has been studied, especially the link with autism, but the (very small) probability is there.

Based on current scientific evidence, the probability of long term harm from current childhood vaccinations is tiny. My opinion on this will change if the evidence changes. Not stories on the internet.

I think the main difference between us is the evidence we value. You seem to place a great value on anecdotes, both those you hear personally and those you read on the internet. I think anecdotal evidence has its place in hypothesis generation and understanding statisical relationships but I don't value it above scientific evidence. It's the scientific evidence which trumps for me I'm afraid.

It is possible for a tiny risk measured at population level to translate into a much larger risk for an individual child.

My decisions are based on what happened to my own child.

That is more relevant to what might happen to his siblings than population data.

As I said, when I had an average child I vaccinated.

ElaineBenes Wed 05-Dec-12 14:30:48

Yes, obviously, if a child has had a severe reaction then the risk would be greater.

Like I said, I don't judge any individual decision. You have your reasons for believing the risk for vaccination side effects is high (even though I haven't fully understood why you think they'll fare better with disease but that's up to you if you wish to disclose further)

But the evidence is that there are very very few children who will suffer any long term effects from the childhood vaccines we give. Certainly, I haven't seen any evidence, aside from potentially severe allergies, that any child is more at risk from the vaccine than actually developing the disease. Being ill with a vaccine preventable disease for almost any child (including some who aren't advised to vaccinate such as immuno-supressed children) is more dangerous than being vaccinated.

Welovecouscous Wed 05-Dec-12 15:35:14

The reason Saintly gets upset, Elaine, is that your posts do often come across as unkind and insensitive.

Saintly is telling us about her own personal experience. She has a child who may well have been affected by a vaccine and naturally enough has to worry about the effects of not vaccinating on her other children. This is a very sensitive subject for her and others in this position.

It would be nice to see some understanding for the fact that vaccination is a choice and people's views differ on legitimate grounds. It may be anecdotal with no plethora of hard scientific studies - I don't know because I haven't researched it. However, we do have to have respect for people's lived experience.

ElaineBenes Wed 05-Dec-12 16:10:08

I think Saintly gets upset because she makes up offensive statements and then attributes them to me. You can see it throughout this thread. I also believe that Saintly has not attributed her dc's condition to vaccination but I may be wrong.

I would be grateful if you could point out where I have said something unkind and insensitive to Saintly? I could certainly find many unkind and insensitive things which have been said to me but I try not to rise to it (although occasionally fail).

Yes, I've said that anecdotal evidence has value. I didn't dismiss it and I'm sure people's personal experiences and those of people close to them are given even higher value. I know I do that, it's human nature.

But I value scientific evidence more than anecdotal. Anecdotal has its place but I think scientific evidence should be the key driver in policy and decision making. I think the very high value based on anecdotal evidence typifies people who do not vaccinate as well as a propensity to believe in conspiracy theories and deep distrust of professionals.

Welovecouscous Wed 05-Dec-12 16:15:59

This is pretty unkind - assuming there is no herd immunity seems bonkers

Saintly is not saying that, as I think you know. Because she is such a reluctant non vaxer she seems to me to have made her decision on a 'worst case' scenario - assuming there was no herd immunity and my child gets the disease, is that still less dangerous than vaccinating? That seems to me to be a fairly sensible way of reasoning it out.

ElaineBenes Wed 05-Dec-12 16:58:26

OK, I'm not sure if I agree that that's unkind but I guess some people are more sensitive than others.

Point taken and I will tone down my language.

Assuming there is no herd immunity seems odd to me or doesn't make any sense to me - is that better?

I do hope though that you're policing all the posts on this thread. Like when Saintly made up offensive statements and attributed them to me. I doubt it.

JoTheHot Wed 05-Dec-12 17:56:18

People spend too much time inferring things from your tone, things you haven't said, even things you've flatly contradicted, and then taking offence. You'd need a very thin skin to be offended by Elaine. People express themselves differently; I seem to cause offence no matter how hard I try not to.

I don't understand why some of the non-vaxers won't say something along the lines of:

'I do what I do because I want to; because in light of what I've experienced it seems right. There's some science to support it, but not a lot.'

I might well not agree with the decision, but it's honest and transparent. I wouldn't argue with it. By contrast, when they misrepresent the science in an attempt to justify themselves....

Oh Elaine quit with the 'she's so sensitive' line. I wouldn't last long going out and about with ds1 if I was. Maybe ask yourself why you've been accused by others elsewhere of baiting and sneering at those who have decided not to vaccinate after having issues with older siblings. It's how you come across, maybe you don't realise how you appear. You haven't upset me - why would you? Admittedly I do get emotional when I relive ds1's regression (which actually I had to do yesterday as part of a talk - before and after videos to groups of students. yes i find watching the before videos upsetting - so shoot me, or just have a good sneer, frankly the upsetting bit is the regression, not what you think about it).

Yes Jo and it would be nice if the 'pro vaxers' (stupid term - we're presumably all one severe vaccine reaction away from being labelled 'anti- vax' - another stupid term) would recognise they might be a little cautious about their decisions if they were looking at a lifetime of care for one if their children. Because hey ho they'd be interested in individual responses. Not population safety data.

Welovecouscous Wed 05-Dec-12 19:49:40

Jo, if you are always told you offend people even though you don't mean to, it really is time to reassess how you come across.

ElaineBenes Wed 05-Dec-12 19:55:32

I wasn't answering you Saintly. i was answering your friend welovecouscous who was getting upset on your behalf. i certainly wasn't trying to upset you.

To be honest, given that you make up out of thin air offensive statements and attribute them to me, and given that these 'accusers' have called upon you and others to gang up on me and swear at me (quite unbelievable really) with yet more of these 'accusers' calling posters they don't agree with 'cunts' and 'wankers', excuse me if I find it hard to take the accusations of baiting (not even sure what baiting is and what it would involve) and sneering seriously.

ElaineBenes Wed 05-Dec-12 19:56:25

Possibly, welovecouscous, if you constanly get offended by people who mean no offense, maybe you should reassess what your problem is?

Brycie Wed 05-Dec-12 19:57:33

Actually even I remember Jo being very rude, I mentioned to her before how counterproductive it was. I know it isn't right to "carry over" but I do remember it.

ElaineBenes Wed 05-Dec-12 20:07:21

It'd be nice if everyone were civil to one another.

I also remember Jo being called a cunt and a wanker plus other choice words. So I'd say the rudeness is not limited to any one poster.

JoTheHot Wed 05-Dec-12 20:14:56

I think most of the pro-vaxers, me among them, have agreed that they would probably make the same decisions as you have in the same situation. I wouldn't pretend this was a rational decision. I'd say I've looked for the science on individual responses and it doesn't exist, so I'm going with my instincts.

Welovecouscous Wed 05-Dec-12 20:18:06

Elaine, I have never been deleted on MN and to the best of my knowledge I have never ever used a swear word on MN. I really dislike aggressive/sweary posts by people of any stripe.

Saintly doesn't know me either on MN or in RL afaik.

We all need to try to respect each other's differing views. I am in a bf support group with mums who haven't vaccinated at all and other mums who have followed the official schedule to the letter. We all manage to speak civilly to one another and respect the differing views. I do not agree with the mother there who has never given any of her children a single jab because she thinks they are generally highly dangerous. I have told her my view politely. But I respect her rift to choose.

Welovecouscous Wed 05-Dec-12 20:18:46

Right to choose, not rift blush

Brycie Wed 05-Dec-12 20:33:21

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

bruffin Thu 06-Dec-12 06:52:32

NOt sure what you are trying to add to anything Brycie. Policing the threads and telling posters off for their posting style (as apposed to what they actually post) is not on.
The last person who did that got banned as it is just stirring.

Brycie Thu 06-Dec-12 09:37:08

Hi Bruffin thanks for the heads up, you mean you can get banned for saying if people were being rude? - that's pretty scary.

bruffin Thu 06-Dec-12 10:18:03

No it's for continually telling posters off, especially when you are very one sided. It's stirring and adds nothing to the thread.

Brycie Thu 06-Dec-12 12:07:02

I'm not one-sided, I think it's unnecessary and counter-productive whichever side it comes from. But I feel a bit "told off" by you Bruffin!

bruffin Thu 06-Dec-12 12:24:21

"But I feel a bit "told off" by you Bruffin!"
I realise that grin
but you do seem to have set yourself as some sort of umpire or referee and it is very one sided

Brycie Thu 06-Dec-12 12:30:03

I want a big tall chair and a megaphone for Christmas please grin

JoTheHot Thu 06-Dec-12 12:43:46

'I'm not one-sided' !*??

Someone calls me a cunt and a wanker, you more or less congratulate them, but chase me from thread to thread saying I'm rude.

Brycie Thu 06-Dec-12 12:59:04

Excuse me? Explain?

Brycie Thu 06-Dec-12 14:07:04

! oh my gosh I should be more careful - I got deleted for that pretty innocuous post above ! that's amazing

Wow. And I was called over-sensitive.

Brycie Thu 06-Dec-12 14:09:33

Gosh I'm really really cross. Somebody called me disablist on another thread and didn't get deleted and now I get deleted for an "oh come on post"! Honestly this site is a bit weird.

Was that the post about reminiscing about Jo's charming 'lame reasons not to vaccinate' thread.

Maybe mumsnet is run by the department of health. Or funded by Glaxo <play your choice of conspiracy music here>

Brycie Thu 06-Dec-12 14:36:45

Yes that was it. I'm quite cross and had to eat four Terry's chocolate orange segments to make me feel better.

Brycie Thu 06-Dec-12 14:38:06

I'm supposed to have congratulated someone for calling someone else a cunt too but what? Actually?

I have never called anyone a cunt. Not even in real life. A wanker yes, although never on here.

Very odd your post was deleted.

Brycie Thu 06-Dec-12 14:50:12

Not even when alone in the car? When alone in the car I have called other drivers "f-ing bastard f-ing cunts", if there was a real life delete button I'd be down a manhole every time I get behind the wheel. But only then.

Well I'm learning something all the time, what really really annoyed me was someone else calling me a horrible thing and not getting deleted, so hencewhywhatsoever I resorted to chocolate orange.

No, every other word (I am a fishwife it has to be said) but not cunt. And of course I shout at the screen when someone on the internet is wrong, but I don't generally call people names on here (think the last time I did it was 2003).

Your deleted post above isn't the sort of post that usually gets deleted. So bit odd all round really.

Brycie Thu 06-Dec-12 15:00:42

Ok that's interesting. MN if you are reading can you enlighten me?

ElaineBenes Mon 10-Dec-12 04:53:58

I go off for a few days and suddenly Brycie's posts are deleted? What did you say??? I always thought you were quite mild mannered!

I think mnhq are just very quick to delete if a post is reported so don't take it personally. I doubt they have the time to sift through each one. But what did you say that might have caused you to be reported? <intrigued>

Btw, your post about driving made me laugh. I never swear in front of kids but when I'm behind the wheel it just comes out. They find it hilarious 'mummy just said ....'!

Agree about cunt saintly. Even writing it makes me cringe a bit. Hate the word.

Brycie Fri 14-Dec-12 22:27:09

I am except when people are unpleasant I do like to point it out. Which is displeasurable and very irritating but not against the rules I think. grin

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