To wonder why on earth you would not vaccinate your DCs?

[olimpia]

I hear from another thread that some people choose not to vaccinate their DCs at all and I'm genuinely interested to hear why because I can't think of a single reason not to. I can perhaps understand opting out of the MMR if someone believes the bad press (not that I do) but all the other vaccinations? Why, oh why?
(not a troll! Just relatively new to MN)

That was uncalled for.

I have stated my opinions politely despite nasty jabs and insults.

We can all disagree. There's no reason to degrade someone for their beliefs.

Definitely hiding this thread now. I'm shocked at the vitriol on this thread to those who are pro-vacc.

Maybe I will wear a mask around your children in case they 'poison me.' What a horrible thing to say.

Elaine, there are a lot more cars around now and a lot more accidents so it is more risky today than 30 years ago. In contrast, fatalities from the diseases that we vaccinate against were declining before vaccination so the risk from them was actually less.

DD1 had a severe, life threatening reaction to her 2nd DTP vaccination. She was in hospital and we thought she might not make the night at one point. We were advised not to finish the course. She has had no vaccinations since. A short while after that she developed the most terrible eczema and needed hospital treatment on a weekly basis for the first two years of her life. Of course, the link could be co-incidental but there had never been any sign of the slightest thing wrong with her pre vaccine. Afterwards she developed a whole host of issues. And this is with the "safe" DTP, not the MMR.

Because of that, DD2 is completely unvaccinated. I agree she may well have been fine, but after seeing my DD1 in hospital that night, I just couldn't take the risk.

Both girls caught whooping cough, DD1 at 5 and DD2 at 18 months (DD2 caught it from DD1). Depsite DD1 having had 2 of the 3 vaccinations, she was so ill she was in hospital for ages and off school for a term and a half. Once again, we feared she might not make it through. So I agree, it's a terrible disease. But DD2, completely unvaccinated and at a far more vulnerable age, threw the worst of it off in a couple of weeks. The hospital told us to bring her in every day and they checked her when they did the rounds for DD1. They were amazed at how quickly she fought it off.

Now as teens, DD1 has severe allergies, asthma and struggles health wise. DD2 is the fittest child you can imagine and has never needed to go to the doctor since the whooping cough - not one doctor's visit in over ten years.

This may of course be entirely coincidental but you can understand me having reservations about vaccines.

I'm not going to pour fuel on the fire but I will say that the trouble with threads like these is that people use anecdotes as data. I'm not talking about people such as the poster above who explains her personal reasons but those who say "I don't know anyone who had complications from measles".

well put crashdoll - as I think ElaineBenes was also trying to illustrate. it's no argument.

Those who don't vaccinate (whatever their reasons) are still relying on the herd immunity of the rest of us who do...

lurking it would be against civil liberties to force people to vaccinate just like no-one can be forced to have medical treatment, blood tests, etc. I understand where you're coming from but although I still support vaccinations I absolutely reject your idea of making them compulsory.

I will say that the trouble with threads like these is that people use anecdotes as data

Yep agree on that one.

And it is also probably prevalent in the way some people take that decision.

Actually fatalities from car accidents were also going down at the time that seat belts were made compulsory for children. I can't imagine using that as a reason not to buckle up my child

When seat belts were made compulsory, I remember clearly people being against it, saying that you could get trapped in your car and unable to get out. Which would be an issue if you had fallen in a river and were sinking or if the car was ready to explode and you couldn't get out ....

In reality, we know there are no 'side effects' from wearing a seat belt. It's not going to make you ill or compromise your health.

The issue that is going on is that quite a few people say that vaccines actually DO have some side effects that can compromise your health and that they are bigger than what we are told. And that's the issue really.
The same way that some people say that using statins are dangerous for your health and refuse to use it. But because it's only affecting them (whereas vaccination or not vaccination is seeing as affecting everyone) it's OK.

I would like to have the same choice regarding vaccines as I have to take statins, HRT etc...

Those who don't vaccinate (whatever their reasons) are still relying on the herd immunity of the rest of us who do...

Not necessarily - they could be relying on sound nutrition and an healthy life style in the belief that this will optimise the conditions that the body needs to be able to summon its own defences to shake off infection and thus confer its own immunity.

I suppose that rubella vacination needs to be given at 8 yrs old, as a lot of girls start periods at 9 these days?

Also, i do think the community as a whole should fight to stop the spread of infection to protect those weaker then ourselves. There are many vunerable immune compromised people out there, not just babies and children, but adults fighting serious illnesses.

of course the antibiotics are resisting the treatment of TB because its so widespread and out there, a two pronged result of unvacinated people and others arriving in this country carrying the disease.

Sigh, people are not relying on herd immunity. We do not have (and never have had) vaccination levels high enough for herd immunity in the UK. Outbreaks still occur in countries that have high levels of vaccination countries. Herd immunity is not a reliable way to protect yourself against disease. Very few people who have decided not to vaccinate do so thinking that they'll be protected by herd immunity.

Eragon, The TB vaccine ( not the antibiotics used to treat it) is ineffective because the strains of pulmonary TB that are around now are very different to the ones that the vaccines were developed for. The vaccine is no longer offered to the population as a whole because it has beenshown not to be effective. Other countries abandoned it completely years ago.

vaccination rates are high enough to prevent widespread transmission for the commonly vaccinated diseases. Of course pertussis isn't endemic in theUS, what a load of rubbish. You may still get localised outbreaks depending on disease, how contagious it is, how much non-immune people mix etc. Even measles outbreaks thus far have been localised. Why is that? Herd immunity. It's not a yes there is or no there isn't thing. You can have lots of it (where a disease won't be transmitted at all) or you can have less of it (where a disease can have local outbtreaks) or you can have so little there's no effect at all (widespread epidemics can occur). Saying 'there's no herd immunity' is quite a silly statement.

But you are quite right that herd immunity is not reliable. But the more people who are immunized the better it is. Which is why everyone who can be immunized should be immunized. Very glad I live now in the US where this is recognized and it is a state requirement here for any school or camp. I wouldn't force anyone to immunize but in my opinion if you wish to partake in wider social life, you should contribute to the wider social good.

If vaccines are a holy cow, then why has the TB vaccination programme been discontinued? And why doesn't the UK vaccinate against chicken pox like other developed countries. Maybe because they're not and they're treated as just another medicine.

Not necessarily - they could be relying on sound nutrition and an healthy life style in the belief that this will optimise the conditions that the body needs to be able to summon its own defences to shake off infection and thus confer its own immunity.

Untrue, and with with respect, a touch smug. That is all it is,a belief. It will not stop a healthy person catching a disease.

Elaine, have a google and see how many whooping cough outbreaks there are in the US.

Also, there are still outbreaks of disease in countries with over 98% vaccination rate and there have been outbreaks in schools and other institutes that have had 100% vaccination.

grammar, I don't think she was saying that a healthy person wouldn't catch a disease. Just that they would be able to fight it off tend develop their own immunity to it.

localised whooping cough outbreaks do not mean it is endemic. . google 'endemic'. It's not endemic.

It's not 100% effective and immunity wanes, that's why you get outbreaks. Fine. We should look to make it more effective and give boosters, not just say 'ah, well, not immunizing then'.

Just that they would be able to fight it off tend develop their own immunity to it.

I think you left the out the word 'probably' as in they would probably fight it off. Apart from the ones who don't of course. And, yes, this can and does include otherwise healthy people.

Elaine, did you know thee is currently a whooping cough epidemic in Washington state? There have been continuous outbreaks all over the country and doctors have admitted that it is under diagnosed and under reported. We are not talking about a few localised outbreaks here. I posted a link earlier showing the vaccine effectiveness in different age groups. It may surprise you because it is nowhere near 100% effective.

Having had a child who was very seriously ill I would not be prepared to risk the that good nutrition and a healthy lifestyle are enough-they are not in many cases.

Also, some studies have shown that immunity from the whooping cough vaccine starts to wane after as little as a year. Do you really think everyone in the US is going to get a whooping cough booster every year for the rest of their life?

We delay vaccines and spread them out (in the states they do five injections in one visit - that's just cruel IMO). Two of my three were born in Japan, where they hadn't vaccinated against measles. Very scary to hear about all the cases and one of the reasons I had them vaccinated against it.

My mother never had my sister or I vaccinated against anything after a friend of hers had her twins vaccinated and one had an adverse reaction to the whooping cough Jab and was left damaged, so my sister and I suffered measles, mumps, whooping cough, German measles, the whole lot.
I have two children and I had them jabbed to with in an inch of their lives as I did not want them to suffer the illness's I had

Vaccines are not comparable to seat belts, simply because there is no cost to wearing seat belts while there is a cost to vaccination (not talking about money here):

If DC are not vaccinated, they have a good chance to have childhood diseases as a child - when they will be relatively mild and will confer lifelong immunity. If they are vaccinated, they will need to have boosters and will never be sure if they are immune, especially as teenagers and beyond, when immunity is most crucial.

The question then becomes: Am I willing for my DC to bear this cost for the remote possibility that they might one day be infectious in the vicinity of an immune compromised person?

Actually, better yet: Am I willing for DC to bear this cost knowing that they might be infectious even if they are vaccinated?

The answer is No.

DC are vaccinated for some diseases (the more dangerous ones) and unvaccinated for others (like rubella, a very mild disease in childhood) - where it is in their own interest to be vaccinated, not to compensate for the irresponsibility of a non-immune pregnant woman.