to think we should ban non-vaccinated from preschool

[BlackMaryJanes]

I saw this article today:

"Kids Who Haven't Been Vaccinated May Be Banned From Preschool"

...and I'm inclined to agree.

AIBU?

Not now but I did and was unaware.

My consultant said an awful lot of people would be unaware. Rubella runs out and you can have chicken pox several times.The NHS don't waste money by continuously blood testing people to check immunity.I only found out when I became pg,then it was too late to vax.

Most of us in our 40s without red books and vague mothers haven't a clue what we've had or been vaccinated for.

How do you know he hasnt had measles naturally? You havent asked. Youve leapt too unvaxxed = hotbed of virulent disease.

YABU

Why just have this rule for 'pre-school'?

Why not school, university, workplaces, planes, GP surgeries, hospitals? The list is endless. People who can't be vaccinated should be confined to their houses. That would be sensible wouldn't it?

(hides thread)

quite lottie. And people over 40 who probably havent been vacinated. And people in their 20's who th vaccine has worn off. And all those who have been abroad who may have been in contact with all manner of things.

And people over 40 who probably havent been vacinated.

But have probably had umpteen opportunities to catch the diseases in question so might well be immune to them, but yes, confine us to house arrest just in case.

Personally, I think everyone should be un-vaxxed.

www.amazon.co.uk/Vax-Multivax-Vacuum-Carpet-Washer/dp/B0041MI3W0/ref=sr_1_3?s=kitchen&ie=UTF8&qid=1368034177&sr=1-3&keywords=vax-

A Vax is for carpets. I think vaccinations are a wonderful invention, though.

Don't be silly LaVolcan, the over 40s who were never vaccinated in the first place and who've had umpteen opportunities to catch the diseases in question can't possibly have had them, got over them and still be alive. That would spoil the argument for conditional/forced vaccination.

Nobody has answered the 2 questions I put here yesterday so I'll ask them again:

How much would this [proposal of conditional vaccination] work? The unvaccinated child may not go to a state school but can still attend a private one and mix with children there. He can still go into Tescos when his mum goes shopping, still go to soft play, the cinema, his friends' houses, parties, the shopping centre, the zoo, the library, the museum. How much do you really think that creating some form of pro-choice-in-vaccination aparthied would stop you or your child from mixing with the unvaccinated?

How do you stop yourself or your child from mixing with unvaccinated adults?

Oh do i lock myself up then as an unvaccinated adult... I had reactions including fits as a child so my parents were told not to give me any more vaccines.

I delayed the madthings vaccines because of family history. Ds4 currently has mumps caused by the mmr vaccine tho, hey ho i guess i know he should be immune now tho!

The best way to encourage vaccines would be clear and honest discussion over vaccines and openness over possible reactions etc. The nurse vaccinating my children didnt want to give me the leaflet detailing possible side effects... Confidence installing... Not.

Chunderella, I'll pass over your first comment because I hope you do know that I was being mildly sarcastic and not altogether serious.

On the second - that "the inability to control all risks is not an argument against controlling those that we can do something about" - there's still no answer as to what people think should be done about adults who choose not to be vaccinated.

You've hit the crux of the matter in your remark about control. That's what it is and nobody should have the right to control parents and/or children in this matter.

So you admit that you can't coerce adults? Good, at last someone's answered that one. So it's ok to have an unvaccinated teacher but not an unvaccinated child? Interesting.

I think it's a dreadful thing to try to coerce anyone, child or adult, to have a medical procedure against their/their parents wishes.

I don't agree with the idea because it is punishing children for their parents decisions but I do see the temptation. But all children have the right to a state education including at pre school age.

Infamouspoo I don't understand why you are so anti this proposal? Unless I've got in a muddle you have a vulnerable child who can't be vaccinated? Surely you are really really pro vaccination as it is herd immunity that is stopping your child getting the diseases.

Incidentally my own position is as follows:- had rubella aged 8. Vaccinated against it aged 11. Age 29 had a rubella immunity test before ttcing dd. immune. Age 30 and pregnant had another immunity test. Immune. Age 32 decided to have a second child. Briefly debated having another immunity test but decided that would be a pointless waste of NHS resources. Age 33 got pregnant, had the immunity test, joked about being sure it was ok at the time. Result came back. I'm not immune. And nothing that can be done as already pregnant. And dd at pre school.

It has been a scary pregnancy.

Immunity doesn't always last for no apparent reason. And that applies whether you have a vaccination or the illness. (Or both like me.) According to the midwife things that mess up your immune system (such as chemotherapy or pregnancy) make immunity more likely to wear off. Just as you are vulnerable.

I am still reeling at the person upthread who said she was glad her kids had measles rather than the vaccine. I bet if vaccinations were compulsory for school entry except in the case of medical reasons not to, there wouldn't be a sudden increase in the numbers of children not being in school. Parents would just have to make the responsible choice.

Vaccination is a requirement for some public sector jobs: in the health service. A condition of employment is to meet occupational health requirements, which depending on role, may include immunisation against hepatitis B, chickenpox, whooping cough.
So absolutely it can be a condition of employment, but it is not coercion, it is the worker's choice whether to take the job or not.
That is different from the premise offered by the OP, where it is children, who would lose out on education because of their parents' choices. That is a much thornier question.

this is the way I see the vaccs issue. To me I seem that there are some issues I want to clarify. Ok, it's only my opinion but I have been listening to the various arguments for 20 years on various discussion boards.

firstly: The group of anti vaccsers is in two groups the way I see it: Those whose children cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons such as immunosupression and so on. This group DESPERATELY need herd immunity from the community.

The other group are people who have made their decisions on largely Wakefield's work and despite the thousands of published papers demonstrating through longitudinal studies and metastudies that there is NO LINK with autism. Well, I suppose you could totally ignore the consensus of medical advice (but I wonder would they do that if they had cancer and the method of treatment was the consensus of medical opinion... would they say no and pick some other method over and above the expert advice?
A couple of hours googling is not the same as being an expert in a very specific medical field.. After all, if you are going to use a lift in a building, you don;t do an engineering degree, do post grad work in elevators, then do a complete exam of the lift then get to use it... you just trust the last service engineer to have done his job properly.
That's how I see people who based their medical decisions of a bit of googling.

It is this group who should be vaccinated - by not being jabbed they weaken the herd immunity that protect those people, children, pregnant mums, the older people. They NEED it!

I know that there will be (rarely ) bad reactions to some poor soul and their family. I can't imagine the sense of anger and grief they would be feeling or how unfair it all is. But these incidents are rare, very rare and each one I hope in our protective and civilized society they will be cared for and compensated.

But I still think IMO that the risk is worth it? Look at polio - when did the last Angel of Death visit a terrace of houses to leave the young and infirm with such a terrible affliction. It's gone -no more! And that's so good, so important. Maybe we should really trust our instincts but I hope that our instincts lead us to vaccinate and get our herd immunity back to the levels we have with polio

Sorry for such a long first post and I don't want to start a flame. And, btw, all my kids were MMRed and maybe a dose of calpol was all they needed. My first was done in 1992 and then my next in 1995 - in the middle of the imbroglio, but even then, the evidence was that Wakefield did bad science.

thank you for your patience

I followed the party line and vaccinated all my children. However, I also had a very interesting talk with a medical professional on communicable disease about this recently.

They raised the point that measles was rife when we were kids (all my family and most of my friends had it) and yet in the UK serious outcomes were rare (they happened and I know that loads of people on mumsnet have a sister, aunt, brother etc who died or had other serious effects after having measles but in the grand scheme of things it was still rare). I showed them the WHO statistics as mentioned in this thread and the info that measles can result in a large percentage of people getting complications . Their response was that those statistics are based on World Health, and would take into account malnourished children and adults, those with poor immunity etc. I did a google search in an attempt to find data on the health implications of measles in the UK but couldnt find anything but did find this:
'Between the years 1987 and 2000, the case fatality rate across the United States was three measles-attributable deaths per 1000 cases, or 0.3%. In underdeveloped nations with high rates of malnutrition and poor healthcare, fatality rates have been as high as 28%.In immunocompromised patients (e.g. people with AIDS) the fatality rate is approximately 30%.'

Is that true? Would the stats for a well nourished, healthy population of the UK therefore be significantly different to that we are being told. Also how many of the hundreds in the wales outbreak have serious health effects as a direct result of their bout of measles - that may have implications on peoples decisions to immunise in future?

If the stats are being skewed to take into account world health, then I do think all parents should definately be given a choice. If I get my children vaccinated then the chances of them contracting the illness is small, and if they did, the chances of them getting serious complications is small too.

But then what about those children who cant be vaccinated for health reasons? Should we all vaccinate to protect them? Is this the true reason for the vaccinations? If so, should that be stated.

I really do not know what to believe.

"So absolutely it can be a condition of employment, but it is not coercion, it is the worker's choice whether to take the job or not. That is different from the premise offered by the OP, where it is children, who would lose out on education because of their parents' choices."

That's not true, wearymum. Both are conditional. A child would not lose out on education if this proposal were made law. They would lose out on having the opportunity of having a state education. Arguably they would be put in a position of receiving a better education as a result of their parent/s declining vaccination on their behalf, but that's another story.

frogwatcher, I'm inclined to believe that you're right.
arareMNdadperhaps, your argument fell at the first hurdle for me. Too many people assume that:

A. To not want your child/yourself to be vaccinated is to be anti vaccination. For many it isn't, it's to be pro choice.

B. That those who are not in the known at risk if vaccinated group must^ by definition hold their opinions because of Wakefield. Not so. For many, Wakefield has SFA to do with it.