Hello. I understand from another thread that boys cannot have rubella. Can anyone please explain to me the repercussions of me not getting my son innoculated against rubella - he can't catch it but can he give it to others? If so how does that work? Thanks very much
rubella immunity from a jab or the illness doesn't necessarily last - so it's safer to be around immunised children if you are pregnant.
The R in MMR is rubella and recommended for all dcs - boys and girls. So many/most dcs will be immune to rubella while they are tiny though the immunity may fade by the time they themselves want to get preganant.
An dyou are supposed to have your blood test fro immunity BEFORE TTC so you can then have the rublla jab, wait 6 months (or is it 3?) and then begin TTC.
Thanks. On babycentre it actually says wait 1 month after the rubella jab before TTC.
Playing devils advocate though if DC are immune to rubella following a jab when they are tiny but then it fades isn't this something that requires top ups for all (as anyone coud come in contact woth pregnanat women) and not just for children?
Th erubella jab used to be given to girla when they were 12/13 as rubella is only usually serious to unborn foetus'. They decided to stick it in with the MMR as a practicality as children at that age are usually availble and parents attentive to vaccinations. unfortunately the rubella element of the MMR does not last terribly long so pregnant women who had the MMR as children can become vulnerable again. Boy do not need to be protected but can infect pregnant women. So immunuity is important to protect pregnant women butthe jab is given to toddlers.
To me it makes more sense that girls continue to have jab as teenagers (so that at least they are definitely protected) rather then jabbing all toddlers (including boys that don't need the protection themselves) when the chance is it will wear off and may not protect the girls when they pregnant any way. Surely that offers the pg women the most protection? Maybe I am missing something though.
Sadly giving it around puberty means that many teen/preteen girls would opt out (having been in school when jabs are being given..mass hysteria...) without understanding the full implications of their decision.
And then there's the "are you pregnant/could you be pregnant?" question that complictaes it even further.
And giving it to under 5s means that their mums/aunties/friends mums in the paygroup are helped because the chances of bringing it home from playgroup to a preganant adult female are reduced.
and AFAIK having it at puberty doesn't seem to lead to a greater number of adult TTC women being immune as opposed to if they'd had it in childhood.
stressed2007 - rubella is a mild illness for everyone apart from pregnant women. My DS is now 3 and we went for single jabs - I did decide for him to have the rubella jab because it is likely that he will be around pregnant women - boys will catch it and pass it on - it will do them no harm, but it will harm a foetus. My DD is 1 and she will also be having the rubella jab singly soon.
However, regarding the boosters, I am in 2 minds about this. Immunity does not last long enough when toddlers are jabbed so I am thinking of them both having the rubella boosters when they are about 8.
You can get blood tests to determine whether a child who's had one rubella jab is still immune and I am thinking I might get them a blood test each because I want to delay the actual booster jab so that they are both covered during their childbearing years. Well, for DS, what I mean is he might get someone pg when he is 35 or whatever, so I want his immunity to last as well as DD's.
I think the rubella element of the MMR is a ticking timebomb. There is lots of controversy over MMR so there are many unvaccinated children of both sexes. Single jabs are expensive and sometimes can be difficult to get so I think in a few years time, there are going to be pregnant women around who have no immunity to rubella. This will be very dangerous to their babies.