To expect mums to get their children vaccinated?

[againagain]

Met two mums at play group today who said they didn't/weren't. Their reasons were autism, all that stuff on the Internet, drugs companies making money and keeping their children 'clean'. WTF?? Am I right in thinking their kids are safe though because 'the herd' is immunised? I just think there's a certain mother type who thinks anything 'non-natural' or scientific is wrong. Rant over

According to NHS Direct, if the mother catches rubella in the first 13 weeks of the pregnancy, there's a 90% risk that the baby will be affected.

If the mother has rubella after 16 weeks pregnant, the risk of the baby being affected is low.

Sorry I think it should be 'very low' risk after week 16 rather than no. But still 50% is misleading as your risk at week 8 is going to be very high versus negligible at week 38.

You may think this is pedantic but important I think if you're accusing people who don't vaccinate of being too stupid to understand their decision.

x-posted!

According to HPA - up to 25% post pubertal makes have orchitis (usually unilateral) 'sterility seldom occurs'

I genuinely have never understood why mumps vaccination is given - there's a better argument for chickenpox vaccination I think.

Was looking at the same site purple :)

Saintly, where is your data for the 95% figure? This article suggests it's much lower than that (obviously the first and the booster jabs are needed)
95% is the minimum level thought needed for herd immunity and we still fall short of that.

www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/27/mmr-vaccinations-data

Can't link easily as I'm on phone - go to JCVI minutes - I think it was the June 2012 meeting - they discuss imms rates and say they are happy with them and give a link to data (probably on the HPA page?) it's broken down by regions but the MMR rate for the north (where I think there are current outbreaks) was 94/95% at age 5. Given that doesn't include monovalents the measles coverage must be very high -in that age group anyway. Some of the lower figures (in different age groups or areas) may reflect a higher % giving singles but of course that is unknown.

I googled and found one with slightly lower figures (but still 95% for first MMR). The one I was looking at the other day had a 98% rate for Northern Ireland. They fluctuate a bit from quarter to quarter but still very high.

I actually have a letter here from the HPA, written at the height of the MMR trouble ( in 2001) saying there was no problem with MMR vaccination rates and coverage was high (and it was a lot lower then than it is now).

It would be better I think, if the data included singles. It's hard to assess for example whether Brighton parents are rejecting all vaccinations or just have the cash to pay for singles (I suspect the latter as the only people I know who haven't given either MMR or singles haven't given other vaccination either - and the imms rates for pedicel is very high indeed).

But admittedly that's guessing.

Ha sorry autocorrect - but anyway if high numbers are giving the 5 in 1, then I suspect a similar number are giving a measles vaccine - but some will be choosing singles.

And even without that - in some areas the MMR rate is very high anyway.

But 95% for the first MMR isn't good enough for herd immunity, the pre-school booster is needed too. Rates for that are much lower.

Well it depends whether the first is working. And herd immunity depends on monovalents as well (figures not given) so no-one really knows whether it's reached the magic 95%

Actually some tables I saw did reach those rates at 5 years old - but I'll have to try and find them when I'm on my computer rather than phone.

It would be useful to know where the outbreaks are occurring. One report mentioned travellers families - well tbh you would expect measles outbreaks every so many years in pretty much fully unvaccinated populations and increasing the vaccination rate isn't going to affect those. Also teens and young adults mentioned - then we need to know whether they are a) fully immunised b) one dose only c) vaccinated with singles d) never vaccinated. Unfortunately that data isn't available as it is assumed that no MMR = no vaccination (I say it's important as waning immunity could be a factor if teens and young adults affected - in which case you would need a different strategy).

I DO know that the HPA told me the MMR rates in 2001 were not a concern and I was mistaken to think they were (and they were much lower then)

As an adult about to ttc, I have just had to get vaccinated against a lot of things. Because I moved around a lot as a child, not because my parents were against it. It has cost me A LOT of money, not to mention the time and hassle of trying to get vaccination records from lots of countries.

Why couldn't you get it on the NHS? (Genuine question - my rubella status was checked for free prior to ttc and they said they would give me rubella if needed).

These days they give MMR to adults if needed - I haven't heard if anyone having to pay for it though.

OP, yes it is unreasonable to assume other parents should make the same choices as you; that those who don't should be compelled to do so and to stereotype those who choose not to vaccinate their children. There is an assumption that those who don't vaccinate haven't considered the issues properly. Anybody who has looked at the issues in any depth will understand that there are strong arguments for and against.

Yes, yabu.

I'm not in the UK anymore. That's great that adults can still get them on the NHS, good idea.

What are the strong arguments against fascicle? Apart from for children with known reactions to vaccines or illnesses?