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?

But I think that generally, people do want to vaccinate. Maybe not always with the MMR but single vaccines work as well - they just require more discipline from the parents to complete the schedule. If you look in the vaccination topic there are various threads about single schedules.

raspberry - I understand that people have been scared by overstating of the risks of the vaccine and the understating of the risks of the disease. Being scared is natural, and there is nothing wrong with discussing those fears with a healthcare professional.

The media are a lot to blame, so are those who want to sell the single vaccine despite there being good reasons why the MMR is favoured, not only by the UK healthcare system, but pretty much everywhere in the world.

I don't understand why the cynicism against the government is not extended to those who actually have financial gain from scaring the bejeezus out of parents who want the best for their children.

lottieandmia - single vaccines mean it takes longer until the full immunisation is reached, means that people opt out of vaccines where they don't see the direct benefit to themselves because they wrongly perceive the disease to be mild, it means jabbing a child six times rather than twice (if all where available as singles and parents would let them be given), it means there is (if all were available as singles and given) 3 times the syringes, packaging, GP appointments, additives etc etc. That's a huge cost for no real benefit. It just doesn't make any sense.

OK WidowWadman

This website is likely to be a good starting point for parents wishing to find out more about vaccines.

Where does it specifically explain why they need to vaccinate baby boys and girls against rubella? It took me a sentence to say "Because we are trying to stop the disease circulating and our policy of vaccinating babies will do this". I can't find any such statement anywhere but maybe it's hidden. They could substitute this infomation in about the same amount of space it takes to say ..... as well as increasing the amount of work and inconvenience for parents and those administering the vaccines.

I am not looking for an answer about herd immunity because that wasn't the question I was asking about.

LaVolcan

Is this good enough an explanation?

"When a vaccination programme against a disease begins, the number of people catching the disease goes down. But as the threat recedes, it's important to keep vaccinating, otherwise the disease can start to spread again.

If enough people in a community are vaccinated, it's harder for a disease to pass between people who have not been vaccinated. This is called "herd immunity"."

It's not on the MMR specific bit, I give you that.

Herd immunity is particularly important in protecting people who can't get vaccinated because they're too ill, or they are having treatment that damages their immune system.

I find the stance upsetting that rubella is a mild disease, and it's simply not neccessary if someone else's child is badly damaged.

I think few want to see this, and almost everyone would want to see congental rubella syndrome eliminated.

My point still stands. Women older than 25 will have been offered a single rubella vaccine, and men nothing. It is perfectly legitimate to ask, why did this policy change? It's perfectly sensible to say that they found the old policy wasn't effective. That doesn't take much, and is IMO much better than a lot of blather about "inconvenience" and more likely to be persuasive for those who need persuading.

LaVolcan - by only offering women the jab and only from puberty this means that the immunity of the wider population can not reach rates which stop the disease from spreading.

Herd immunity and how it works is explained on the vaccination page I linked to. I agree, it may make sense to reiterate it on the MMR specific page, too.

I wouldn't call anyone a moron- and I do think it's a shame if people do. If only because it gives the anti-vaxxers to focus on.

WidowWadman Is this good enough an explanation?

It didn't explain.

How much effort would it be to say?:
Before [date when rubella vaccine introduced] there were xxxx cases of CRS.
Between [introduction date to 1988] when the vaccine was offered to girls at puberty the rate dropped to xx

After 1988 when the policy was to offer rubella vaccination to boys and girls at 12 months the rate dropped to [negligible amount].

That is not difficult to say and would be more convincing that the patronising stuff that they do say.

WidowWadman - re "you don't really seem to understand about risk assessment yourself"

I assure you that I do Not only have I studied this stuff, but I have worked many years in related fields.

"Plus you actually have not compared the risk posed by non-vaccing to the one posed by vaccing, but compared it to something totally unrelated, namely giving antibiotics"

If you cared to read just a little bit of the thread you would know that was a reply to WhenSheWas.

"The risk of non-vaccination, increases the risk of infection in two ways"

That sentence doesn't even mean anything. You mean to say something like "Non-vaccination increases the probability of infection" in at least a and b.

Anyway, have you missed the part where I repeatedly said that I want DC to get the disease they are not immune to?

"don't get me started on the stupidity of the "immunity through infection is better" argument. The whole point of immunity is not catching the disease, surely"

LOL, you are way over your head, aren't you? Actually, immunity through infection is better, since it doesn't wane and is lifelong. For a disease as mild as rubella, you want DC to have it as children and then be immune for life. DD doesn't need rubella immunity at 18 months, she needs it in her childbearing years. DS doesn't need rubella immunity at all (although I'm pretty sure he had it already).

seeker - there is only one anti-vac person on this thread. Everyone else does believe in vaccination as far as I can see.

From the government point of view, of course the MMR is better. It requires fewer trips to the GP, cheaper admin costs and as you say 3 vaccines are given at once. That doesn't mean it is a better vaccine than single vaccines though. Or that parents who would prefer the single vaccine are too stupid to make sure it gets completed properly.

But I don't understand why people think singles are better. The is no evidence at all that they are.......

"by only offering women the jab and only from puberty this means that the immunity of the wider population can not reach rates which stop the disease from spreading"

"Wider population" doesn't need to be immune to rubella. Only women of childbearing age need to be immune to rubella. Rubella is not dangerous for anyone else.

I can go on saying this until you get it, so let me know if it still hasn't sunk in and we will take it from the beginning.

"Actually, immunity through infection is better, since it doesn't wane and is lifelong"

Evidence, please?

I'm not anti vaccination, seeker, but neither am I a moron.

Not better for all children seeker - just some.

"Because it perhaps does not overload an immature immune system quite so much?"

Fvidence, please?

What is it, seeker? You are not aware that vaccine immunity is known to wane over time, now?

How many of these MMR threads have you been? How many times do you want people to post the relevant studies?

I would recommend searching jimjams past posts for the word "wane".

cote tbh I agreed with widow re you not seeming to understand risk assessment. Although you clearly understand a lot about risk you don't seem to understand that there is no evidence that the mmr vaccine causes autism. I very much doubt you have any experience interpreting medical data.

raspberry I think it's ok to be conflicted. You do seem aware that there isn't actually any evidence the mmr causes autism. I for one think its great that you have admitted your reluctance but decided to do the rational thing and vaccinate.
Personally I would vaccinate at 13 months rather than wait because I worry more about the chance of catching measles.

cote there is a chance we could eliminate rubella from the planet.

It will never happen as long as people refuse to vaccinate because that infection is some other woman's problem.

"CotedAzur"

"Wider population" doesn't need to be immune to rubella. Only women of childbearing age need to be immune to rubella. Rubella is not dangerous for anyone else.

The wider population needs to be immune to Rubella to protect the unborn children of those women for who the vaccine doesn't work. With a 95% uptake of the vaccine, these people would be protected.

Well as the parent of three girls I see it as my responsibility to make sure my daughters are vaccinated against rubella before they are able to have a baby - I do not see it as other people's responsibility to vaccinate their babies against it so that my daughters don't catch it when pregnant.