Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to wish there was at least one school that only took vaccined children

64 replies

mollymoo25 · 20/11/2013 23:46

name changed for this , although would probably be outed pretty quickly.

just wish there was one school that offered this so I didn't have to rely on other mums to vaccinate their children !

OP posts:
Sirzy · 21/11/2013 11:33

Many of the children who aren't vaccinated it is because their own illnesses mean they can't be. Why would you want to discriminate against those children?

Whatever the reason children aren't vaccinated it isn't the choice of the child not to be vaccinated so why punish a child for something out of their control?

I know its frustrating, but even if every child was vaccinated it wouldn't protect them. My DS is very vulnerable to chest infections and even a common cold can land him in hospital - not amount of vaccination of other children can stop that. Unfortunatly some children are always going to be more vulnerable but you can't control other peoples behaviour to stop that.

Crowler · 21/11/2013 11:38

In countries where vaccinations are mandatory, there are exceptions for children who have medical reasons for not vaccinating.

Crowler · 21/11/2013 11:41

Unfortunately, they also have exemptions for children who are not vaccinated for religious reasons.

HairyPorter · 21/11/2013 11:44

Yabu. I'm pro vaccine but ultimately it boils down to choice and its not really my business how others choose to parent. Yes it may affect me and my kids, but life is full of risks. We can only do our part to minimise risks to our kids. You can't bring up your kids in a bubble op. even if tere was a hypothetical school with all vaccinated kids, there's billions of viruses out there that we haven't developed vaccines for!

saintlyjimjams · 21/11/2013 12:52

The recent whooping cough outbreaks were due to waning immunity - even the dept of health didn't blame unvaccinated children for those (whooping cough vaccination is at a rate where there should be herd immunity). That's why their response was to move to directly protecting those who are most at risk (newborn babies - especially those born to vaccinated mothers who are more likely to not have immunity themselves) by vaccinating pregnant mothers.

There is some evidence that whooping cough pathogen in circulation has mutated - although that's slightly controversial - if it has it is believed to be due to selection pressures from mass vaccination (well that won't have caused the mutation - that will have been random - but will have led to selection for the mutated form). A quick google will bring up peer reviewed papers.

Andrew Read (who is 'pro' vaccination btw) is the person to read if you want to understand selection pressures arising from vaccination. It's Potentially an important issue as vaccinations are developed against more rapidly mutating pathogens - as vaccinations can select for more virulent strains.

Personally I think evolutionarily biologists should be employed in all public health strategy teams but that ain't going to happen.

Andrew Read also gave a very good TEDMed talk.

saintlyjimjams · 21/11/2013 13:09

Oh and I wasn't suggesting the use of homeopathic vaccinations - my point was the French system allowed the kids I knew to attend school on production of homeopathic vaccination certificates. There are unvaccinated children attending schools worldwide - even in places that certificates are supposedly needed. All mandatory vaccination does is pick up those who haven't got around to it.

Even David Salisbury was arguing against mandatory vaccination last year in the BMJ arguing that it would be damaging. And if he doesn't have the stomach for it I doubt anyone does.

Crowler · 21/11/2013 14:14

saintlyjimjams - just as you could find David Salisbury to oppose it (I googled the article), you could find Paul Offit (his debate counterpart) to support it. His expertise aside, that was an opinion based on how people respond to mandates rather than his epidemiological one (or whatever sub-discipline this belongs to).

saintlyjimjams · 21/11/2013 14:50

Yes but Paul Offit has absolutely no say in vaccination decisions in this country whereas David Salisbury is in charge of them. I was talking about the UK & whether mandatory vaccination is ever likely to be introduced here.

I also think if the UK had someone who financially benefitted personally from vaccination in the way Paul Offit has insisting on mandatory vaccination, exactly the sort of damage Prof. Salisbury argues in his paper could happen WOULD happen.

saintlyjimjams · 21/11/2013 14:52

And of course Salisbury is rabidly pro vaccination - and even he baulks at making it mandatory.

mollymoo25 · 21/11/2013 14:59

I said briefly after writing this that I knew I was being unreasonable and it was a rational thought in the slightest. I was just frustrated and crapping my self about my children and their future.
its more about if they did catch these things what it would to them mainly one of them.
I know if she caught a cold , flu etc that she is gets very poorly and that I can't prevent them catching anything and everything.
I couldn't imagine how she would cope catching something more serious than a common cold, which scares me. I know I am probably being unreasonable as in reality deep down I know I am going to loose her either way. so im sorry for irrational and unlogical thread I will as for it to be removed.

OP posts:
Crowler · 21/11/2013 15:03

Ah. Well if your point is that this makes it unlikely that it will be mandatory in the UK on his watch, I can agree with that.

My counterpoint was that I read the article and his opposition stems from his opinion on the way human beings react to health mandates, not a purely scientific one.

I have no doubt that people are making money on vaccinations - it's big business. But it doesn't follow that they shouldn't be mandatory. That said, no one with even the appearance of a conflict of interest should be involved in these kinds of decisions.

Pixel · 21/11/2013 17:03

now she has got measles despite having the MMR.

If all (or nearly all) children had had the MMR she would not have caught it and been put at risk of such a dangerous illness.

I'm not sure that really makes sense. If one person can catch measles despite having MMR then surely other people can too. So even if everyone had MMR there would still be a small risk. Perhaps the child in question has passed measles on to someone else and they are not best pleased either!

mumofbeautys · 21/11/2013 17:18

stopping the urge to comment on this thread. must be strong

candycoatedwaterdrops · 21/11/2013 18:22

It sounds like the OP has a child with a very serious illness and she's scared, so maybe we can cut her a bit of slack?

Flowers for mollymoo

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread