to think it's not terribly helpful to keep referring to parents who haven't MMR'd as "whack jobs"...

[MsGillis]

..or morons, or unfit parents, or up there with people who drink and drive?

I appreciate that people have very strong feelings around the subject, but I think that we need to understand that there are a significant number of parents who didn't/haven't vaccinated, not because they are crystal waving nutjobs, but because they are actually scared shitless and paralysed into indecision?

Surely there are ways and means to communicate information, and arrogantly shouting about how one person is right and anyone who disagrees is all kinds of nobhead is not going to be conducive in opening up reasonable dialogue?

I was reflecting more on people not realising that it can be a severe disability whenshewas. My son will never talk again, will never be able to be alone, will never walk down the street unaccompanied. He has been awarded higher rate care and higher rate mobility for life - if that isn't a severe lifelong disability wtaf is? What do people think we're trying to avoid?

temp - I think your nobody actually knows is very important. It's what everyone who knows what they're talking about (from researchers to consultants) have told me. It's honest. So we make best guesses with the information available.

FairPhyllis - re "people often justify their decision not to vaccinate with a statement about having 'researched' their decision, which imo shows a lack of appreciation of how skilled and knowledgeable scientific researchers are, and how difficult it is to acquire that skill"

You clearly believe that nobody who is not a medical professional can possibly understand the issues involved, but this is not about a terribly complicated question. It is quite simple to understand.

Mass vaccination of babies for childhood illnesses is sensible for certain dangerous illnesses, but is not beneficial to these babies themselves. It is for the greater good, perhaps, but there are ethical issues involved there and parents are perfectly within their rights to refuse these.

I gave Rubella as an example. It is a very mild disease. If the population were left unvaccinated, everyone would have it as a child and have lifelong immunity. Girls of childbearing age can be tested for immunity and those who are not immune can then be vaccinated. This is what I intend to do for DD.

DS is not vaccinated against Rubella for the simple reason that he doesn't need to be. I'm pretty sure that he has had it as a baby, but even if he is not immune, that is perfectly fine because I don't expect him to be pregnant at any point in his life.

All this is perfectly logical and yet vaccinating babies for Rubella is government policy. Why? Because they have other concerns (herd immunity, protecting the the baby of irresponsible pregnant women who didn't check their immunity, preventing economic loss from parents staying home to care for sick children etc) whereas as a parents I have one single overriding concern (what is in the best interests of my child?).

When you have a minute, look up Game Theory studies of vaccination decisions. GT works very well in this situation because it recognises the different and potentially conflicting goals of the state and the individual and concludes that it is perfectly normal for parents to decide not to vaccinate where perceived risk of a vaccine is higher than its expected benefit.

All this to show you that many people who have decided not to accept the full vaccination schedule for their children are not "whack jobs".

Even respected scientists who question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines are labelled 'whack jobs', unless they reach the 'right' conclusion that is. The lay person with horrible personal experience or an aversion to propaganda and and the injection of unknown proteins and live viruses into the body is hardly going to get away with putting a hand up and daring to ask.

Not to mention heavy metals. But that's okay, because there is mercury in tuna

"When you have a minute, look up Game Theory studies of vaccination decisions. GT works very well in this situation because it recognises the different and potentially conflicting goals of the state and the individual and concludes that it is perfectly normal for parents to decide not to vaccinate where perceived risk of a vaccine is higher than its expected benefit."

That is a travesty of what game theory says and does. It does not in any way validate the actions of people who mis-perceive risk, or who use herd immunity selfishly as a shield. It simply predicts and guides outcomes based on assumptions, whether these are sensible, evidence-based, merely mistaken or voodoo medicine.

Hi cote I think we've had this discussion before. I've said it before and I'll say it again you and I have a different approach to society.

You seem to have a my dd will be fine if she's gets reubella when young, she will be fine and if she hasn't had it I'll immunise her when she's older -and screw the poor pregnant women who comes into co fact with her

I have a different approach and see myself and my daughter as a part of society. I am lucky she has no medical conditions that would prevent me from vaccinating her. I personally feel I have a responsibility to my family friends and neighbours to keep the risk of disease as low as possible.

Maybe people are reacting to the fact that we cannot know the risks as many of the adverse reactions go unreported and explained as a coincidence (on an alarmingly regular basis - at what point does coincidence cease to be coincidence?). Whether the true risks are purposely misrepresented or genuinely overlooked, the result is the same. A fully informed decision cannot be made.

co fact = contact. Sorry totally garbled post (need to stop posting from my phone).

"Refusal to vaccinate is child endangerment. Measles has been eradicated from Australia and several other countries (officially confirmed by WHO) because they make vaccination a compulsory pre-condition for school entry."

how is this enforced? Is entry in to school not a legal requirement? I guess there are still some people who don't vaccinate so it would seem that if measles has been eradicated then it doesn't really need everyone to be vaccinated?

If anyone ever tried to inject me or my son with something against my will i would fight them tooth and nail.

I have vaccinated my child (1st round of MMR) and have had measles as a child but I still think it has to be up to the individual if they want to - this is something the the BMA agrees with too.

lady so I take it you don't take / wouldn't take any medicine then?

It is true adverse events are under reported though.

It is perfectly fine for your approach to life to be different than mine. I don't remember asking but thanks for sharing.

If the state wants to protect that hypothetical irresponsible young pregnant woman, it needs to check all teenager girls for immunity and vaccinate the non-immune ones at that point. That is the logical vaccination policy. It is the least risky one for everyone concerned. Of course, it is slightly more expensive so they push MMR on babies instead

Imho it is not reasonable at all to expect all babies (girls and boys) to be vaccinated in the world to protect the hypothetical baby of hypothetical non-immune girls they might hypothetically come in contact with one day.

Though I have just read "Endemic Measles declared eradicated from Australia in February 2009" so it's just not Endemic, presumably there are cases?

LadyGranulomaFortesque that is the opposite of my experience. DD had a reaction to one of her jabs. Nasty but short lived. I reported the reaction, then told them when it was over. They called back and started taking details. I said that DD is fine now. They said that every vaccine case of reaction is recorded and they have to keep the record. I was also advised to get her next set later and they sent me a letter to keep with her vaccine record.

I live in Canada. The system is different here. However, if the world conspiracy about vaccine people are to be believed, every country should be covering up adverse reactions. Mine certainly isn't.

Vaccines aren't medicine though. And in general, no I don't, unless necessary. I took antibiotics about five years ago for an infected tooth cavity and ended up with godawful thrush. Other than anit-itch cream (urea based) I haven't really taken anything else. Nothing that carries with it the risk of brain damage, anyway. If I needed such a drug, I would have to think very carefully about the risk/benefit.

I think the question the Australian vaccination Network asked was quite good really - "We introduced a vaccine for a disease which was killing almost nobody and one has to ask, why?"

Wears - It is not a "travesty of what Game Theory says and does"

Err, this is exactly the sort of situation that Game Theory studies

Here is a paper on Vaccination and Game Theory. It is not easy reading if you have never studied Game Theory, but the conclusion is simple enough:

"This finding formalizes an argument that has previously been made qualitatively; namely, it is impossible to eradicate a disease through voluntary vaccination when individuals act according to their own interests. In situations where vaccination is perceived to be more risky than contracting the disease (r > 1), one would expect, even without the aid of a model, that no parents would vaccinate their children"

MrsT, I know the US are better and more open at reporting adverse reactions. The UK is terrible. Not only will they go to the far end of a fart before admitting it 'could' be a vaccine reaction, the yellow card reporting system is a closed system, so the public are unable to look at the reported figures online and have to write in by snail mail and request specific data. I have downloaded VAERS data for statistical purposes simply because that data is not available publicly in the UK, yet is openly available in the US. The systems are different. And I didn't mention a global conspiracy, I was talking about how UK parents are unable to look at the real figures because reactions are either unreported or not easily available, where they are reported.

"When you have a minute, look up Game Theory studies of vaccination decisions. GT works very well in this situation because it recognises the different and potentially conflicting goals of the state and the individual and concludes that it is perfectly normal for parents to decide not to vaccinate where perceived risk of a vaccine is higher than its expected benefit"

You conveniently forgot the bit about this game outcome only working when the other 95% did get inoculated.

Essentially it makes sense to cheat avoid inoculation yourself, where there is a small % risk, if you can be sure you will never have to face the far higher risk of getting the disease as enough others have created the herd immunity.

You also conveniently left out the bit about what happens when the game cheaters non inoculators undermine the herd immunity level.

It's called Swansea, it kills, and it's no longer a game.

'If the state wants to protect that hypothetical irresponsible young pregnant woman, it needs to check all teenager girls for immunity and vaccinate the non-immune ones at that point. That is the logical vaccination policy. It is the least risky one for everyone concerned. Of course, it is slightly more expensive so they push MMR on babies instead'

What Cote says is right, and absolutely logical. If all girls were checked at 11 or so for rubella immunity (perhaps earlier now that some girls are starting periods much earlier) and vaccinated at that point, then there would be no risk to pregnant women at all.

lady you took antibiotics, some antibiotics can cause life threatening reactions, seems you didn't mind the risk then. I mentioned medication because your statement about the risks and adverse reactions applies as much to medicines as vaccines.

The 'world conspriacy' comment was general, not directed at you Different paragraph, I was trying! It was mainly directed at my idiot friend who posts quasi-scientific bullshit on FB about vaccines. A 12 year old could pick apart the science in these conspiracies but she can't. It made me very angry yesterday so that got mixed up into my post.

"I have a different approach and see myself and my daughter as a part of society. I am lucky she has no medical conditions that would prevent me from vaccinating her. I personally feel I have a responsibility to my family friends and neighbours to keep the risk of disease as low as possible."
At least you recognise that this attitude is a luxury not available to all. i would urge you to think with similar care about what has happened in societies where the communal interest has been prized above individual liberty. Once you make the interests of "society" more important than the rights of the individual this tends to lead to some pretty unattractive outcomes.

And as to people like jimjams denying the link between non-inoculations and epidemic outbreaks, that is wha....well, it says it all really.

cote and lottie I thought we had already established that a small number of individuals cannot be immunised. What about those women?

cote I brought up the whole society thing as your attitude of I'm alright Jack I'll look after me and mine and sod the rest of you really grated my teeth.

Lazyjaney - if the government had not stopped parents being able to choose single vaccines then perhaps there would not be an outbreak in Swansea right now?