Measles Outbreak?

[MoaningLisa]

I am sure you have all heard on the news that there has been an outbreak of measles.

Papers, Schools, Hv, Drs are saying if you or your child haven't had the vaccine(s) now would be a good time to get it done.

I cant help but think though that the parents who haven't and wont get their child vaccinated are putting their children at risk.

Aibu to think that its just bloody selfish and very daring to play with their own childs life?

Curly, for the millionth time we don't have and have never had herd immunity to measles, mumps or rubella in the UK the vaccine coverage has never been 95%.

You really are just blinded by people's qualifications aren't you?

'risk of serious side effects' do you even know what the potential side effects are? Or what the risk of getting them is? Probably not. Easier to just believe what the big important doctor tells you - after all, they're never wrong and they never exaggerate or scaremonger.

Gosh bubbly, you can say that- but with an Mmr uptake of around 85% we must have SOME herd immunity - certainly not perfect as the WHO recommends over 95% for full herd immunity.

So our Mmr uptake is pretty high as a country, but not perfect. But that's a heck of a lot of parents voting with their feet to get their children vaccinated isn't it? The silent majority perhaps?

Or are we all deluded by the medical profession? Is it all a conspiracy that only a few scientists and a few posters on this thread know the truth?

Mmm don't think so.... But you'll all carry on arguing the point anyway I'm sure!

If measles does hit uk in high nos. What happens to all the babies aged 6-13 months Immunity gone from mother. Mmr not yet given? I hope none of these babies suffer with this dangerous disease
My Ds has his booster jab booked next week and I'm glad of it

My mil lost a child to rubella in pregnancy. He lived only 3 hrs.
I owe it to my children and others to vaccinate

It's up to the parents surely? If a parent knows someone who had mumps and is sterile (coincidence or not) they would probably want their children to have the MMR.

For parents like me who's healthy child had the MMR and afterwards started regressing and eventually diagnosed autistic with doctors still stumped on how they regressed (coincidence or not) they may decide to have any future children avoid the vaccination or have it in 3 seperate shots.

If there is no proof either way then surely we can't be all judgey about this.

I can't stop reading this thread-more's the pity. It seems to me that the majority are all trying to say things similar to squidgy's husband and CurlyGirly, but the minority don't want to know. Hecklers was a good term. Eventually people give up and go away-they realise it is utterly pointless.
However I think that if you counted all the posters ,over the very long thread, you would find that the antis are firmly in the minority.
They will of course pick holes in everything I have said!

Sometime, later next week, when this thread is still running, you're going to rue the day you started this thread.
Mark my words.

This was by Paisleyleaf the 8th post, last Friday. What a wise woman-why oh why didn't we listen.

Come on bubbly, measles complications have been well observed and documented- it has been around a long time. Lucky you if you get a mild case, unlucky you if you are immunocompromised in any way, or get complications.

Encephalitis, pneumonia, eye disorders and squints, heart disorders in rare cases to name a few. These are very well documented and the reason for development of a vaccine - they cannot be shrugged off. Not scare mongering - real risks.

Exotic, your posts made a lot of sense to me and I'm glad you stuck around!

I have been thinking of the same post everytime i see this thread in AIBU.

Oops, in reply to exoticfruits and paisleyleaf.

I don't think I've argued a single conspiracy on this thread yet curly. Do you think everyone who questions the mmr has a conspiracy in mind?

Squidgy's DH, from the meningitis research foundation (I'm presuming they know a bit about meningitis)

"Most cases of viral meningitis are relatively mild, with symptoms of headache, fever and general ill feeling, and those affected recover without medical treatment....Very unusually, it can become life-threatening or cause long-term after effects."

Yes, I'm aware of the risk of orchitis in post pubertal men. Also aware that it rarely occurs in both testicles and that the reduced sperm count can increase again. In any case, a man with only one working testicle could populate the world so it hardly = sterility! Surely the risk of that complication is one of the reasons why it would be better to catch it in childhood and be immune for life? The vaccine doesn't provide lifelong protection. Iirc the mumps component of the mmr is the least effective. Similarly with rubella. Better for a woman to have lifelong immunity so she can protect her unborn child yes?

Also, if you look at the hpa vaccination figures you will see that you can't blame Wakefield for the lack of herd immunity. There has never been 95% vaccination coverage in the uk since the mmr was introduced in 1988. You will also see that there were fewer cases of measles after 1998 than in the years before and that is still the case. Even the 370 cases we've seen so far this year puts us on target for fewer cases than before 1998 so I'm not sure where you're seeing more measles.

curly, we were talking about mumps and rubella when I asked you about risks. The vaccine covers 3 diseases - what risks of those diseases outweigh the risks of the vaccine?

I wish that I could be bothered to count the posters for and against or 'sitting on the fence', but with nearly 900 posts life is too short! I'm sure that in the end 3 posters will have 'won' in that people just can'tbe bothered to argue any more!

Oh, so I have to keep repeating myself? And answering the same questions?

Yawn. Ok, Mumps - details of complications just above in squidgy's husbands post plus my own experience of my brother's convulsions at 18mths due to mumps.

Rubella- devastating to the unborn child if mother not immune. Mother, hopefully will be immune in this day and age DUE TO VACCINES.

And that is why I support vaccinations.

Really, to deny the serious complications possible with these diseases is foolhardy- our generation is already benefitting from the vaccination programs given to previous generations.

This gives some people around today the luxury of saying 'oh measles/mumps/rubella are mild diseases - and we haven't vaccinated and none of us have caught anything' Great! Lucky you- this is largely due to vaccination of previous generations- you wouldn't be so lucky if younger in pre-vaccine days.

Blinded by qualifications? Maybe- qualifications are the route used by professionals to gain accreditation to practise a certain expertise yes. When was the last time you let your mate down the pub oversee the sale of your house? No. Rather get a solicitor in!

Andrew wakefield was a qualified professional - you liked him yes? Or was that only after he was struck off?

I neither like nor dislike him. I've never met him and I know very little about him! I do know that people blame him for things that haven't happened (eg. Lack of herd immunity and/or increase in measles cases to give recent examples)

Love the way you don't answer the question yourself btw - says a lot about how little you know ESP since the doctor himself has backtracked a bit since his first post!

Re rubella, care to explain why it is a 13 month olds responsibility to protect a pregnant woman? It would be better if she was immune herself wouldn't it?

'benefitting from the vaccination programs given to previous generations.' please, please don't tell me you're going to try the herd immunity argument again. You've done it to death and I've referred you to the figures countless times to show it isn't there.

You must have missed the post where I said I've had measles, rubella, whooping cough, chickenpox and mumps. So much for the protection from those previous generations! Although I know my own parents missed out on most of these vaccines because they weren't around so I'm not really sure what previous generations you're talking about here. In any case, I must be a medical marvel to have survived all that or, you know, an average child catching the usual childhood diseases at the time.

Oh bubbly, give it up- we're never going to agree - when did I say you couldn't survive all those diseases? Of course you can - doesn't mean everyone will.

I keep coming back on here and answering all these questions - some I don't feel I have the necessary expertise to answer- so o will look to the experts. You keep then coming back with more questions! I looked at your precious measles HPA figs - and commented on those this afternoon- you've now gone strangely quiet on measles and moved onto mumps and rubella .

You've ignored my comments on herd immunity - the fact that we have some at 85% Mmr uptake- but not perfect because it needs to be above 95%.

Every post of mine answers a question put by you, then you move onto something else??

Like I said, if you don't trust the WHO and this countries health professionals, who do you trust? Lone scientists with websites and un-referenced, unreplicated work? People on mumsnet constantly arguing against vaccinations?

I'll stick with the WHO and the HPA and the doctors who work every day with these diseases.

It may not be a 13 mth old's responsibly to protect a pregnant woman - but when that 13 mth old grows up to be the pregnant woman herself she will be glad of the protection to her unborn child.

If some of the people on here who don't vaccinate their daughters, and nor do the next generation, then they will be at risk of exposure to wild rubella when they grow up and become pregnant?Can you guarantee that unvaccinated girls will get wild rubella in childhood and get immunity?

Vaccination means no one gets the measles/mumps/rubella.

"Can you guarantee that unvaccinated girls will get wild rubella in childhood and get immunity? "

That's the point Curly, Rubella actually isn't that easy to get and lots of women don't get it until it's too late. It comes in epidemics up to every 5 years.

My sisters and I caught Rubella from my mother when I was 13 a few weeks before I was due to have my rubella injection. I definitely had german measles as I tested immune when I was pregnant. She had managed to get to the age of 38 without having it. I have a work colleague who caught it at a similar age. The last big rubella epidemic in the early 1960s US saw 30,000 miscarriages and 20,000 cases of congenital rubella syndrome. That is 50,000 women who obviously didn't catch it in their childhood.

Re measles, what immunity does my 14 week old have to it from me, if any?

Weesa, your daughter will have maternal antibodies from you. The length of time these will last depends on whether you have natural immunity to measles (longer lasting) or vaccine induced immunity.

bruffin, are you against the idea of testing girls for immunity when they are older and vaccinating them if they are not immune?

"Vaccination means no one gets the measles/mumps/rubella."

Are you serious? Do you not remember the post about the 43,000 mumps cases and allthe outbreaks of the diseases that occur in countries with > 95% immunity? France currently has a vaccination rate of 90% and they have an epidemic. So do you really think 85% in the UK is going to make a big difference?

I haven't gone quiet on measles either - the conversation has moved on to cover mumps and rubella because they're part of the mmr. Just trying to understand why people feel vaccination against those diseases in childhood is so important as they are often uncomplicated in childhood and the risk of complications is much higher post puberty. Ie when the vaccine immunity wanes. I'm wondering what people's objections are to testing immunity when children are older and only vaccinating those who aren't immune.

Oops 95% vaccination coverage - not immunity.

squidgy's husband - You forgot to mention that mumps does not cause sterility or reduced sperm count in pre-pubescent boys. It is a childhood disease, so if we didn't systematically vaccinate babies against it, boys would have it in childhood and be immune to it for life, without needing to worry about their fertility.

As for rubella - I'm sure you would agree that rubella is a disease so short and mild that a lot of parents don't know that their children have had it. It is only ever dangerous to the fetuses of non-immune pregnant women who catch it during pregnancy. Again, if we didn't systematically vaccinate babies against it, everyone would have it in childhood and we wouldn't have to worry about pregnant women's rubella immunity.

There might be a few boys who have not had mumps and girls who have not had rubella until puberty. It would not be difficult to test boys for mumps at, say, the age of 7 and vaccinate those who are not immune. Similarly, it would be easy to test all girls at age 12 or so and vaccinate against rubella if necessary.

This would make much more sense than vaccinating all babies for childhood diseases that are mild when caught in childhood, and then giving them boosters, and also worrying about waning immunity years later when they actually need that immunity to preserve their fertility or unborn babies.

There seem to be a lot of selfish people on here -as in 'my DC has measles, it was no big deal, a slight rash and raised temperature'. Has it not occurred to these people that the conclusion was not that measles is 'a doddle' but that they were extremely LUCKY and their DC may pass it on to the next person who gets it very badly, with life threatening complications?
(but of course this is perfectly OK because my little darling didn't suffer).

My brother had chicken pox so mildly that you hardly knew he had it-this proves nothing-I had it very badly.

The whole point, CoteDAzur, was that a lot of DCs didn't get mumps or rubella when young-even if you try. My mother sent me around to catch rubella, it failed-every one else around about got it but not me. I got it when aged 21yrs-luckily I wasn't pregnant. I remember someone, with a lot of soul searching, having an abortion because they got it when pregnant. People seem to have such a casual attitude to these diseases-'you can have it in childhood, get it out out of the way, and it will be mild.
You may not have it in childhood, you may get it as an adult and -either way-it might not be mild.

And I said we can easily test all boys for mumps immunity at age 7-8 and vaccinate then if necessary. Same with girls and rubella immunity at 12 or so.

There is no valid reason to vaccinate babies against these diseases whose possible negative effects come into play only if contracted during or after puberty.