To think this takes not vaccinating to a whole new level

[Swanlaked]

DD has a child at school who has cancer. The school sent a letter home asking all parents to please think about giving their child the MMR if they haven't had it and also to inform them immediately if any child was in contact with chicken pox.

One of the mums at the school is still refusing to have her 3DC vaccinated. No health issues it's big pharma/poison/conspiracy theory crap

AIBU at this point to think the school should seek removal of the children and tell the bloody thicko to find another school for them?

Atenco, not just unvaccinated children at risk it is people like me who are at risk. Too old for vacs, never had measles, can't have measles vac now because it is a live virus that would, at best, trigger an MS relapse. This choice bollocks puts so many people (adults and children) at risk if there is no herd immunity.

IMO it is for every parent to weigh up the arguments for themselves, and reach their own decision. They're not obliged in any way to come to any decision in particular. If they wish to take their chances with chicken pox over a potentially fatal reaction to a vax it's their call.

gonetosee, the trouble is that the parents aren't taking their chances, are they? They're taking their children's chances, and the chances of immunocompromised people with whom their children might come into contact whilst infectious.

You simply cannot force someone to avail of a medical treatment that will in all probability hurt someone and you cannot justify it by saying that others will be saved or avoid the issue by saying those who are at risk of a reaction are exempt because those kids do not have a helpful yellow label on their foreheads.

I think you have to weigh up risks. Statistics demonstrate that the risk of getting the illnesses in question is higher than the risk from vaccines, and the risk of those illnesses being very serious and resulting in long term, permanent and sometimes fatal consequences is also substantial. For most parents, they look at the risk of having, say, the whooping cough vaccine, and the risks of their child having whooping cough (which, as demonstrated upthread, can include death) and decide that the vaccine risk is lower and one that they are prepared to take. If you aren't prepared to take that risk you have to think about whether you can live with yourself if your child is permanently disabled because he catches whooping cough, or if your child passes it on to an immunocompromised child who dies as a result. Sure, you have to think about whether you can live with yourself if the child is damaged by the vaccine, but if you have followed informed advice living with yourself may be that bit easier.

Gone to. Measles kills. It is not like a cold which is in itself harmful to peopl with poor immunity.

Yawn that wasn't my point- my point was rich anti vaxxers will still get their choice (through private education) it's nothing to do with people in poverty not being educated (although ban people from school and insist their anti vaxx parents home ed them and there is a high chance they won't be educated)

gonetoseeamanaboutadog Oh well shrugs shoulders I wish you luck, I genuinely hope your decisions don't come back and bite you. If they do, I hope you are swiftly imprisoned.

"the vaccinations of most adults have either worn off "

Why would they have worn off? I think most of the live virus vaccines on the schedule usually confer pretty long-lived immunity (I had a rubella vaccine when I was 12 and I was still immune 25 years later when I got pregnant). I'm also immune to chicken pox and measles from having had them, like many adults in the pre-vaccination era.

"And don't recently vaccinnated children shed?"

Ish. AFAIK there are potential issues with people who've just had the oral polio or rotavirus vaccines (and I think one of the flu vaccines) being in contact with the immunocompromized, not any of the others.

I grew up in a country where you had to pay for private medical to see the GP. Most GPs wouldn't accept patients that hadn't been vaccinated. Not fun sitting in a waiting room when you are pregnant and seeing a woman walk in with 2 kids covered in spots and wondering what the hell it is and are you going to get it and hurt your baby. If you don't want to vaccinate your kid, go live on a desert island and don't put others at risk

registration.bma.org.uk/pressrel.nsf/wall/3D5DCEEC7A8C78B980256BAB00353D8A?OpenDocument

This is just one article which comes up on doing a Google search.

Don't know if this helps eatsleep

Three, measles is no respecter of income. I am put at risk by anyone who undermines herd immunity , be that herd a well-heeled one or an impoverished one. I work in a well-heeled herd area, I live in a rather less well-heeled one. If there is no immunity in either area I am at risk.
Frankly , at this point my concern is not The unvaccinated child, rich or poor, it is the immunocompromised me. And others like me.

Yawn do you mean to keep replying to me? Or is it another 3 hours referring to? I genuinely can't see how your responses to me have anything to do with what I've posted

Yawn that wasn't my point- my point was rich anti vaxxers will still get their choice (through private education) it's nothing to do with people in poverty not being educated (although ban people from school and insist their anti vaxx parents home ed them and there is a high chance they won't be educated)

Three bed semi, I was replying to that. Which was replying to me.

My nine week old DD was exposed to a child sick with measles in the Drs waiting room. Parents hadn't had child vaccinated. Dr called to inform us and arrange emergency immunoglobulin intramuscular injections (a very painful treatment for a tiny baby). It's so unbelievably selfish and makes my blood boil when I think back to how frightening waiting out the incubation period was (thankfully she didn't contract it).

bollocks to whoever said we can't take away people's choice. We take away people's choices all over the place in the cause of reducing risk to OTHER people from their actions.

You can't send a text message while driving...not because you might kill yourself (good riddance if you did!) but because it makes you a danger to others.

You can't smoke in somebody else's work place...not because you are killing yourself (again god speed with that) but because you are harming the health of others.

I cannot see at all why the decision to vaccinate a child should be made by anyone other than HCP having looked at the details of the child's specific case. This would benefit people like me, who just signed up without any idea if past history of allergies in the family should make me think twice, and it would certainly help those put at risk by their parents refusal to vaccinate.

I think the idea is pretty clear - where the harm is to someone other than yourself, the state/society gets a say (if it wants it!)

That doesn't really make sense, but I think what you're saying is the rich/ poor divide in respect of choice over your medical treatment isn't important to you, as long as enforced vaccination happens?

Which is fine but it's an opinion- I thought you were trying to present it as fact.

You're entitled to your opinion, as are others who think anything the government forces you to do by withdrawing free services disproportionally impacts the poor.

Harbinger = herald, one who announces the arrival of another

Nope. Just my opinion. If, as you say, "the poor" would be disproportionately disadvantaged by being penalised for undermining herd immunity, I accept that. But I, and others like me, are disproportionately disadvantaged by a reduced herd immunity because there is a greater risk of us being dead.

What about adults who have not had all the current vaccinations? Are they a risk as well?

I have no idea whether I'm immune to anything other than chicken pox. I'm too old to have had the MMR and don't know if I could have it now (not that I would). I had mumps and German measles when I was a kid, and also had the rubella vaccine. I didn't have the whooping cough vaccine though as my DM chose not to let me have it.

Yeah, it's so much better to have your child contract a horrible, debilitating and/or fatal illness rather than get autism or line the pockets of "big pharma". Keep sticking it to the man! /sarcasm.

I just don't understand anti vaxxers. And that's anti vaxxers, not people who's children are medically unable to be vaccinated.

Also here's on what would happen if nobody vaccinated their kids.

bollocks to whoever said we can't take away people's choice. We take away people's choices all over the place in the cause of reducing risk to OTHER people from their actions.

Very good point. Like freedom to/freedom from. Should your freedom not to vaccinate your child trump someone else's child's right to be free from risk of a potentially fatal illness?

Pink, if you have not had measles and there is no herd immunity in your area then you may well contract measles . I hope you don't, of course. If you have no underlying health problem you could get vaccinated (may have to pay for it, dunno). My problem is that I haven't had measles, I can't now be vaccinated because of an underlying condition (MS) and there is no herd immunity in my area. In your position, I would probably just take my chances unless there was an outbreak. I don't have a choice.

Cheers Adnerb, don't worry, I'm well aware of the overarching benefit of vaccinating :)

What I'd love for someone to do is for each immunisation take the stats for disease prevention (like those you've linked), plus the stats for increased risks to the immunocompromised without the vaccination, plus the risks inherent in having the vaccination (such as allergic reactions). With that all in one place it would be easy to evidence how the risk of a negative reaction is so small compared to the risks to the immunocompromised and the benefits in general that is should be compulsory. I assume of course that those stats would show that although I don't have them, which is all I was saying before :)

Thanks for the link, Chuff. Bullshit covers the conspiracy theory arguments nicely.

I don't get the big issue with asd.

My son has asd and he is not some mythology creature he is a 10 year old boy.

Those who spout the asd line really pisses me off. Ds was born that way . There wasn't nothing I could have done differently to alter him having asd. Believe me it's taken year and years for me to actually say that.

It's wrong to ask someone to force their child to to undergo a procedure that has risks in itself even though it has benefits if your primary purpose is to prevent harm to others.

You can stop people doing actions, I.e, texting, passive smoking but I don't think you could force someone to have something done to them.

People with HIV are not forced to take medication, but they can harm others.

My young child was immunocompromised so I kept her at home.

The other difficulty is agreement with hcps on what constitutes a valid reason. No one would give an injection to a baby if their was suspicion of allergies or a reaction.

You also don't need 100% vaccination rates to have herd immunity.