This is page 1 of 1 (This thread has 24 messages.)
Mumsnet hasn't checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have medical concerns, please seek medical attention; if you think your problem could be acute, do so immediately. Even qualified doctors can't diagnose over the internet, so do bear that in mind when seeking or giving advice.
I know no-one can really answer this but I'd really appreciate some opinions. DS has had the 2 & 3 month 5-in-1 (and men c) jabs. Due the last one about now. I just don't want him to have it as after the 2nd lot he didn't smile and was generally not his usual happy self for two days. No temp though. Anyone know why there are 3 jabs scheduled and if he's likely to already be immune? ps he is fully breastfed and doesn't attend daycare (dd is at nursery though). Thanks in advance, Dinny
I would go along for it dd has just had pre school booster has localised swelling but is otheriwise fine I think it is common for them to feel a bit unhappy with it but the consequences of not having immunity could be horrendous
dinny, all vaccinations initially require 2 or 3 shots to boost the immune system's memory cell population. Further boosters are given years later, if necessary (eg tetanus every 10 years).
Babies' immune systems are pretty immature and don't form these memory cells very efficiently, so they get even more shots. However, if you are BF, then any shots or diseases you have had means that the baby acquires passive immunity through the milk, but only for as long as you are BF.
After my DS's violent reaction to the first 5 in 1, he ain't getting any more until he is at least 1 year.
The third shot you mention results in a more severe reaction as your baby's immune system is more efficient by 1 year so you get a reaction that almost mimics the disease. As for the dose, I don't know if it is increased I'm afraid!
Dinny, didn't say anything before because I'm not totally sure... NOrmally Jimjams replies because she tends to really know her stuff.
I thought it was a 90%-type thing. 90% of babies will get immunity the first jab, 90% of the reminaing 10% of babies will get immunity the 2nd jab, 90% of the last 1% will get immunity with the 3rd jab, etc.
But it may only be 80% each time, or it may vary depending on which vaccination (I think the polio part is less effective, for instance). And you've got 5 vaccinations... so to be at least 95% sure of having immunity to all 5, you need a 3rd jab. Else you run a moderate risk of not having immunity to at least one of the 5 diseases in the 5-in-1.
depends on the jab (MMR is a 90% get immunity first time round). DTP generally requires the 3 shots- no idea about the "new" bits (men C, hib etc). Bfeeding gives good hib protection, and men C is more often a disease of teenagers. Diptheria and polio aren't in the UK, Tetanus isn't usually a problem until crawling outside. pertussis is most dangerous in babies under a year (especially under 6 months) but is probably the least effective vaccine of the lot- and the one most likely to provoke a reaction- although the new acellualr version is supposedly safer.
I'm sure that's just muddied the waters further but may help make the decision.
leaving a long gap between tetanus boosters makes the likelihood of a reaction to that more likely (in fact in many cases they're supposedly binning the 10 yearly automatic boosters as reactions get worse with age and with increasing numbers of boosters). I had to battle to get one 10 years ago when I was working with wild animals!
Not long been through the 3 sets of jabs with ds, horrible isnt it but I dont regret doing it because the side-effects were short lived compared to the long term protection against those nasty diseases. Ds was miserable after all three and I gave him calpol in advance (about an hour before) with the second 2 jabs so it was already in his system. IMO if it is just a day or 2 of misery (I know at the time it doesnt seem like JUST but on a lifetime scale of things its not much) then its well worth it. It would be different if there was a severe allergic reaction, then I would be very wary.
Youre right it is impossible to tell if your child will be the one to react. Even if there is only a very low risk, just say one in a million for example, you still dont know that your child wont be that one in the million that gets the problems. On the other hand you dont know whether or not your child will be one who falls victim to one of these diseases if you dont have the jabs.
Socci I do agree with you that of course the NHS site is giving only giving out the NHSs side of things. Just to clarify I didnt put the link there because I think that it is the gospel and all it says should be followed. I just think that it gives a basic outline of their vaccination schedule and it answers some questions. I know they maybe giving a biased view but Im assuming that whilst they may leave out relevant information and not tell the whole story they are not giving out lies as that would be unethical. Of course there may also be information thats not included there because its not even known yet, there may be risks that have not been discovered or proven yet. Personally I would never rely on one source of info alone to make an important decision. For example for a topic like this I would maybe use a combination of mumsnet, other websites, opinions of people I know, books, my own health care professionals, and the list goes on but you get the drift