Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

To not know the risks of non vaccinated children near other children?

53 replies

MrsFlannel · 14/04/2015 09:36

my sister in law lives in Australia and has a 1 year old. MIL told us last night that SIL is not vaccinating the baby. This is an issue in Oz at the moment as they're implementing a new plan whereby the parents of non-vaccinated children aren't going to get their family allowance money. [[
edition.cnn.com/2015/04/13/asia/australia-anti-vaccination-welfare-cut/ here...no jab no pay]]

The ethics of this are of course questionable...

MIL is worried about SILS baby and about my children being near him..we're relocating to Oz later this year....but if my children are vaccinated then surely he poses no threat to them? MIL is also worried about SIL losing money. She's a single parent and works only 2 days per week so she's going to really struggle.

OP posts:

LadyCatherineDeTurd · 14/04/2015 20:36

Understandable. I would definitely worry too, but can see how saying anything would cause a lot of shit to hit the fan. I suppose she's hoping you'd be unhappy with the small but present risk to yours from an unvaccinated child.

SaBearOz · 15/04/2015 09:06

I believe the govt benefit the Australian govt is limiting to those who are vaccinated or have legitimate reasons not to vaccinate is similar to the UK child benefit an whilst means tested most people get some aspect of it except the super wealthy. I just applied for it today in Australia and they do check ur child's immunisation records.
Agree that non vaccinators in Oz ten to be wealthy but not all so it will affect those who object or have forgotten to get boosters etc.
To be fully immunised u have to get all vaccinations including chicken pox even if they have had it. You will need to bring their red books for an accurate history to be taken.
TBH this immunisation programme is probably the only thing I agree with Tony Abbott on as I had a son who was on life support following catching chicken pox in the UK

Original poster

MrsFlannel · 15/04/2015 09:09

I disagree about the wealthy aspect...I don't know if it's because Adelaide is a particularly hippyish place...it's got a big New Age community....but there are lots of non vaccinated kids and playgroups aimed at them and these are not wealthy people...they're ordinary....I'm with you by the way...I don't agree with not vaccinating kids.

OP posts:

SaBearOz · 15/04/2015 09:13

Mrs Flannel I only took the wealthy aspect from Q&A on Monday night so I could be wrong- and agree there are large alternative lifestylers all over Oz (some of whom are against vaccinations) and tend not to be wealthy

soapboxqueen · 15/04/2015 09:37

Apparently 97% of the people who could be affected by the new policy are already vaccinated. I wonder if the other 3% are just objectors or also include medical religious exemptions. I question how effective it will be and the effect of forcing people to do something. Surely if it's so good, you shouldn't need to force it.

FYI I'm pro vaccine

Original poster

MrsFlannel · 15/04/2015 09:58

*soap& 3% leftovers doesn't sound like many but I suppose it's enough to cause serious outbreaks....I also wonder how many are not doing it for religious reasons...what religions would make people refuse?

OP posts:

bumbleymummy · 15/04/2015 12:26

"To be fully immunised u have to get all vaccinations including chicken pox even if they have had it. "

This makes no sense. If they are trying to promote this as a way of ensuring people can't contract and pass on the diseases to the vulnerable (a public service type argument) then having previously had the disease should be enough.

bumbleymummy · 15/04/2015 12:27

MrsFlannel - they aim for 95% in the UK so 97% is high.

soapboxqueen · 15/04/2015 13:39

Mrs Flannel I don't know what the religious reasons for exemption are either. From a medical stand point I don't understand the logic of allowing a religious exemptions and not 'just because' exemptions.

Morloth · 15/04/2015 21:31

Might be an Adelaide thing. I grew up in Sydney's west suburbs where most people were pretty broke. Every single child I know from the West is vaccinated.

When we were looking to resettle in Sydney after living in the UK vax statistics were one of the things we took into account, by far the largest group of anti vaxxers were North Shore types (very wealthy).

I live in the middle between these two places and while our area is wealthy the vax rate is very high. I do wonder if it because this area is full of the 'self made' successful types, mechanics, plumbers, tradies etc with a smattering of bankers and Lawyers.

Morloth · 15/04/2015 21:32

So maybe not quite as much 'education' but a lot more real world experience.

SaBearOz · 16/04/2015 00:29

The reason for the chicken pox vaccine even if you had it in the past is to ensure that they try and maximise the immunity to it (as u can get it more than once although this is slightly rare and if u have it before 12 months of age then it's unlikely u would have built up enough immunity to protect you). My DS had a severe case of chicken pox and was ventilated in ICU but I still chose to get him immunised when we moved to Australia last month a) so he would have the fully immunised certificate otherwise he would be excluded from school or child care if there was an outbreak b) I would have hated to have gone through that guilt again if he got it again (the severe case was his 2nd time as he had it when he was a baby) and been left wondering if the immunisation would have helped. The vaccine is given with the MMR so it's not an extra injection.

Aussiemum78 · 16/04/2015 00:51

Dd just had the 12 years gardasil and rubella. The chicken pox one was done, but the info sheet said not to vaccinate if they'd already had it. This was at school in NSW.

bumbleymummy · 16/04/2015 07:50

Aussie - that makes sense. Even if they needed a doctor's cert or something to confirm that they've had CP(or others) in order for them to be exempt. I wouldn't want to give my children a vaccine for a disease I already knew they were immune to.

Out of curiosity - does it have to be the MMR they had or do they accept separate vaccines?

bumbleymummy · 16/04/2015 07:54

SaBear - I'm sure that was really scary for you. FWIW I think there should be more information about signs of complications for CP. Not done in a scary way but just what to look out for and when to seek medical advice.

Dawndonnaagain · 16/04/2015 08:37

Chicken pox can be had more than once, so not immune even if you've already had it. There are many primary school teachers that can vouch for this! Possibly explains the insistence of vaccination even if a child has had it.

bumbleymummy · 16/04/2015 09:02

Rarely dawndonna. The vaccine doesn't guarantee protection either.

Morloth · 16/04/2015 09:10

There are no guarantees with anything really. I think of vaccination like a weighted dice roll.

bumbleymummy · 16/04/2015 10:09

It seems like flawed logic to not consider a child immune after having CP even though having it a second time is very rare ( NHS ) but to consider them immune after the vaccine which isn't 100% effective.

soapboxqueen · 16/04/2015 11:11

bumble it probably comes down to having a paper trail. Anyone could say their child had had chicken pox or have misdiagnosed at home.

A vaccination would be recorded.

bumbleymummy · 16/04/2015 15:02

Yes, that's a possibility. That's why I suggested perhaps having a doctor's cert to confirm diagnosis at the time.

If they were going to be very strict about it they should really require a blood test post-vaccine to confirm immunity. Doubt they'd go to that extreme though!

LadyCatherineDeTurd · 16/04/2015 15:39

Well the blood test would be the best way of course, but perhaps it's not cost effective. I don't think it's flawed logic, though. We know that neither the vaccine nor contracting CP provides 100% immunity. A person who's already had CP can still have the vaccine easily enough, but it wouldn't be so straightforward to require a vaccinated person to then contract the illness!

A doctor's cert might be an option going forward, but there are lots of people who've previously had CP but didn't see a doctor at the time. I've had it, but I wouldn't be able to get a medical professional to confirm.

bumbleymummy · 16/04/2015 18:54

I guess in those cases LadyC, you would need a blood test to confirm. I would just like to see an option - if you can prove you are immune (doc cert/blood test) then you can be exempt - not just the vaccine or nothing approach.

bumbleymummy · 16/04/2015 18:56

Also, from what I've read, proven cases of contracting CP a second time (rather than it just being a case of misdiagnosis the first time) are very rare. I think two CP vaccines are said to be 97% effective (iirc) so depending on what classes as 'very rare' the risk could be much the same!

scaevola · 16/04/2015 18:57

"This is an issue in Oz at the moment as they're implementing a new plan whereby the parents of non-vaccinated children aren't going to get their family allowance money."

This isn't actually a new plan, it's been running for years if not decades.

What is happening is a clamp down on permissible exemptions (as the number has shot up in the last few years).

Flip

1 2 3

Swipe left for the next trending thread