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?

Frog, yes that's true.
Arare, are you saying vaccine damage is ok because they can be compensated?

Even if the effects are not severe, they can be life-limiting. For example, I had mumps shockingly badly which left me with tinnitus. Now, I know I'm not going to die from it but I've had decades and face decades more of never knowing silence. Plus, these diseases are just nasty to have, even if you don't have any side-effects. Why would you want your children to go through them, or to risk exposing immuno-compromised people to them, when you can avoid them with a jab of a needle?

Wallison - there can be many reasons for not wanting to give your child a vaccination. Many of the people who didn't give MMR did not make their decisions based on Wakefield or Autism. There are many children who have had other complications with vaccines such as hives, breathing difficulties etc which can put a parent off giving further vaccines to both the affected child or siblings. It can also put off other members of the extended family. And that's just one example of a reason to not give vaccines - there will be 101 different reasons for people to make their choice. Each parent will be doing what they truly believe is best for their child and if we walked in their shoes we may well make the same decision.

Its all about choice and even in my parents day some parents wouldn't give vaccines.

I think if the true main reason for vaccinating against an illness is herd immunity for those who are immuno-compromised etc,then it should be stated. The honesty would probably convince more people to vaccinate as it would be simpler to understand than for those of a certain generation who saw most friends and family have measles, mumps etc and not have any side effects (again - I know many did have side effects but as stated before it was still rare in the grand scheme of things).

Wallison, perhaps you are still reeling from my comment earlier, I don't know. I made my decision not to immunise based on what happened to my first child when I did. Do you think it was an easy decision? Do you think I didn't spend hours agonising over the 'right' thing to do?
Do you think that parents who choose not to vaccinate do this on a whim?
You have a very simplistic view of things.

"Why would you want your children to go through them, or to risk exposing immuno-compromised people to them, when you can avoid them with a jab of a needle?"

Have you only just landed in MN? There have been zillions of very long threads on this subject, many of them in the past week, full of perfectly valid reasons that people have had for not injecting their babies with every vaccine that comes out.

"if the true main reason for vaccinating against an illness is herd immunity for those who are immuno-compromised etc,then it should be stated"

They can't say that, for the simple reason that it is very clearly unethical to make a baby take the small risk of vaccine damage for the benefit of some other person.

Cote - what's fifth disease? You mentioned that upthread but I've never heard of it - does it have another name?

'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.'

Because I am totally against forcing anyone to have any medical procedure. Note the word 'forcing'. Yes I have a child who cannot be vaccinated. But no, I am not scared of those diseases particualry in a healthy western child and I would not force anyone elses child to undergo anything for my child.
If I was I'd force you al to stop driving. It affects his chest. Daily.

HollyBerryBush Do you understand that "99% invincible" is not invincible? Do you understand that if 1 in 100 children aren't immune after receiving 2 doses of the vaccine (in fact it's slightly higher), and you multiply those percentages up by the actual numbers of children involved, in the hundreds of thousands, then that's thousands of children who despite being immunised properly, are still vulnerable to catching those diseases? And therefore children whose parents have not vaccinated them stand a good chance of passing it on to those whose parents have done their best to protect them?

Would have thought that was pretty obvious really...

There have been loads of threads on this before. In the past I would have agreed with the OP.

However the children of unvacinated children need to attend school more. Imagine the bollox that they would learn if their parents home educated them.

Prehaps all unvacinated children should be offered vacinations on school entry by the school nursery.

Unvacinated secondary school children could choose whether to have the vacinations without needing parental consent. It is illogical that girl can have an abortion without her parents consenting or even knowing, but cannot decide whether she has the MMR.

Well, I survived without a flaming!

thank you again

'Imagine the bollox that they would learn if their parents home educated them.'

Oh lets add another myth. Home ed children learn bollox. I'll tell my dd at Oxbridge that then. She was home educated.
She's vaccinated too.

I've already spotted some of you cherry picking from my comments and being a bit ridiculous ie "Arare, are you saying vaccine damage is ok because they can be compensated?"
I'm not even going to dignify that stupid comment with a reply.
...and there are others...

"However the children of unvacinated children need to attend school more. Imagine the bollox that they would learn if their parents home educated them."

How offensive. How utterly ignorant too.

It was so ignorant it didn't deserve replying too, at all. imfamouspoo your dd doesn't count because she was vaccinated, it's only mine who weren't

unvaccinated AND home educated. There is no hope Big Buttons

I don't think the implication was that all kids who are home schooled learn bollocks, only that the anti-vaccination mob are more likely to think bollocks (going on how they talk) and thus teach their kids it. Still, it's not all bad news; their kids might end up being homeopaths. Or faith healers. Plenty of poor misguided souls out there willing to part with their money for woo-woo.

wallison would you like to think about the questions I asked you?

"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?"

I think we have to add group 3:

Those who have no medical explanation but have seen more than one child in their family deteriorate suddenly after vaccine and suspect there may be an as yet unexplained genetic weakness in their family.

Perhaps even group 4:

Those who may understand the weakness of Dr Wakefield's methods but still worry that the potential effects of vaccines are insufficiently understood: the one does not exclude the other.

cory I so agree and wish posters would stop putting such a simplistic spin on things.
I am distressed by all these nasty threads. The number of times I have posted about my personal experience and it has simply been ignored because it doesn't fit in with what these ignorant posters want to believe.
I wish they would open their bloody eyes and stop being so narrow minded.
With my son all the medics I came into contact with after he had his mmr agreed that something was wrong. They wouldn't say it was because of the mmr but equally they wouldn't say that it wasn't and none was prepared to spend the money and time investigating his issues. It was just damage limitation.
Maybe my other dc's would have been fine, maybe it was just my eldest, who knows, none could or would help me find out. But I wasn't going to play Russian roulette. After much hand wringing I decided to take the chance. They were otherwise very strong and healthy and I knew the chances were they would come through the measles without complications. And so they did.

I fully anticipate that this post will also be ignored by the militant pro vac brigade.

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.

Haven't read the whole thread. Chose this comment at random from many who were saying the same.

It's parent's responsibility to provide education. The state requires this and kindly helps by providing free state school places for those who choose to take them. If they fail in that responsibility, standard procedures for neglect are invoked. That could involve the state taking over parental responsibility, at which point vaccinations might take place. Simple answer really.

If parents fail in responsibility to provide educations, I meant.

Just to add: this doesn't mean parents would be forced to vaccinate. Home education or a school who don't require it (e.g. private) might be an option.

I rest my case.