DH has shingles...can we visit our nephew who has had no vaccinations?

[user1477282676]

DH been feeling rotten for about a week now....today he came up in the tell tale spotty looking things across his side, back and some on legs.

We're meant to be going to MIL"s tomorrow for boxing day lunch....but SIL has a 2 year old who is completely unvaccinated. (I know, I know...don't ask!}

Will it be bad for our nephew? What happens? Can we still go or should we cancel?

We've just called MIL to let her know...she's saying "Oh it's fine!" which she would say because of course she wants us to go...but DH told her to tell SIL because it's up to her.

What's the sensible thing?

I suggest you read at least the last couple of posts in a thread before posting.

Graphista, she doesn't give a fuck. Apparently women are meant to ensure they are immune before they become pregnant.

I do give a fuck. Lots of fucks, in fact. Just won't inject DC with stuff that is not in their best interests, ever.

"Apparently women are meant to ensure they are immune before they become pregnant."

Is it really need to you that an adult should not expect babies to take risks for her? Especially something she could sort out herself?

There is no valid argument for mass vaccination of babies for the good of some adult they may or may not come in contact with. All vaccination carries a (small) risk. We vaccinate our babies because we believe that the vaccine benefits them.

Where there is no benefit to the child, vaccinating him is ethically and morally indefensible.

If "Doesn't give a fuck" is all you can say in response, that means you know this as well as I do.

Is it really need news to you

Cote the existence of another sibling who has had a severe reaction to vaccination with suspected genetic links IS the valid medical reason. Worrying that any other child, with no siblings, or no affected siblings, may also have an extremely rare reaction to vaccination is irrational and not a valid reason for not vaccinating. You might as well stop your child from eating eggs, dairy, nuts, etc, from taking any antibiotics or steroids, from being around bees and wasps, etc all of which are harmful to a small number of people. Adverse reactions to the above and many other things are not even as rare as adverse reactions to vaccinations but with no other evidence that they will be a problem (e.g. family history, earlier milder reaction) we just go ahead.

"the existence of another sibling who has had a severe reaction to vaccination with suspected genetic links IS the valid medical reason."

As I said, vague guesses re genetic susceptibility. Not "valid medical reason". For that, you would need to be able to identify who is at risk, which we currently can't.

"Worrying that any other child, with no siblings, or no affected siblings, may also have an extremely rare reaction to vaccination is irrational"

Risk assessment is a personal thing and depends on one's Utility Function as well as risk preference. "Irrational" is a big word to use when the risk is real - there are many children around such as Mind's, including several I know in RL.

Some of us are more risk averse & feel that permanent damage with no hope of treatment is a fate on par with death and so will avoid that risk if at all possible. That means I will vaccinate DC when necessary for their own well-being but won't when not, as in the case of rubella & chicken pox.

Anyone who feels this is a bad thing is welcome to try making a case for why babies should take on a grave risk, albeit small, for the sake of adults who are more than capable of caring for their own health.

'Vague guesses' who said they are vague guesses? This area of medicine may not be entirely understood but if there is a reasonable suspicion that there is a genetic component, then it is perfectly reasonable to counsel siblings of affected children not to be vaccinated. None of this would be in the least bit problematic for anyone had crackpots not taken over the vaccination programme.

While there is a subjective element is risk assessment it doesn't mean that some decisions are not entirely irrational and others unreasonable. If I refuse to leave my house on Wednesdays because I fear the risk of alien abductions is greatly increased in those days, my decision is entirely irrational. If I do not vaccinate my child with the MMR because I fear they will catch autism my decision is equally irrational. Risk assessments can also be unreasonable, which is exactly the idea behind phobias, I.e. a fear of spiders such that one takes normal precautions to avoid being bitten by deadly spiders that frequent one's home, is reasonable, whereas a fear of spiders such that one becomes so paralyzed as to be incapable of living a normal life in a home with little chance of meeting a deadly spider is unreasonable.

Luckily not everyone writing on risk assessment is a naive utilitarian and there is hope for us all.

I HAD read the posts I was responding to

"DS isn't likely to get pregnant so will never have it."

I'm alright jack attitude then? All that matters is you and yours? No care for herd immunity or for those that can't be vaccinated for valid medical reasons? Delightful

I know someone who got shingles and (despite their GP saying it wasn't possible!) promptly found that their DC developed chicken pox.

However, it's one of those things that you only get once and is relatively harmless if you're young, so it may be best if he just gets chicken pox now and gets it over and done with.

My mum had shingles when I was pregnant. Didn't realise until after she'd visited me. DD1 hadn't had chicken pox by that point either. Midwife said it wouldn't have been a problem and her doctor confirmed that. Sure enough, Dd1 didn't catch the chicken pox from her (hadn't had the chicken pox vaccine) and DD2 was fine.

BUT I would check with what SIL feels and respect her decision as the parent. I haven't RTFT yet so don't know if you've heard back from her or made a decision but just sharing.

OP were you hoping for this to degenerate into an antivax bashing thread? Chicken pox vaccines are not routine and I am yet to hear about a vaccine for shingles so why is the childs anti vax status relevant to your post? So that people's blood can boil? My kids are vaccinated but I am just so sick of the bashing of anti vaxers.
My sister's son has vaccine damage, she did the right thing. She now wishes she didn't. We are lucky our kids are ok after vaccinations but people like my sister have sacrificed their children so that others can sit on their high horses with boiling blood when someone says they are not sure about vaccinations.

No, you haven't read the posts that came before yours Graphista. If you had, you would have understood that I would not vaccinate DC against their own interests and for the sake of some adult who is perfectly capable of taking care of her own health. And why.

As for your "delightful" - The choice between making the best decision for the health and well-being of DC and some stranger on the internet finding us "delightful" is not a difficult one at all.

Booboo - WTH are you talking about alien abductions on Wednesdays for?

Vaccine damage is real. It happens. It has happened in the families of at least two people on this thread, several I personally know in RL, and countless other MNers. It is acknowledged by the medical community and is listed as vaccines' possible side-effects. There are government compensation programs for vaccine damage.

You are being entirely unreasonable to suggest avoiding unnecessary vaccines to fearing alien abduction.

Cote it's a very simple analogy aimed at evaluating the reasons one has for judging a risk to be unacceptable. Try reading my posts again.

Vaccination IS necessary! Go on a paediatric ward as I have and see babies and children affected by the serious complications of illnesses for which we have vaccinations which they were not vaccinated for.

Vaccination injury is awful and sad but it is rare and less likely than complications of the illnesses they are designed to prevent.

But yes reading your posts AGAIN I have to agree with missbishi

Yeah I suppose if you never have to live with a vaccine damaged child you will not be able to understand why some people see it as a risk they dont want to take.
I personally am not worried about Cote's children not being vaccinated I have seen both sides. I dont understand why pro vaxers fears are always more relevant than that of anti vaxers though. Either way some child somewhere will pay the price. It may or may not be yours.

I understand there's a risk and potentially awful consequences to vaccinating but that's true for not vaccinating too and statistically not vaccinating is more risky.

elliemillie that's a bit like saying that if you've never lived with my great uncle who was severely disabled as a result f contracting polio as a child you will never understand why people chose to vaccinate.

It is not that some fears are more relevant but that some fears are more reasonable. An adverse reaction from a vaccine is a minuscule risk, adverse consequences from the many diseases vaccines protect from, especially given the risk of a population which is losing its herd immunity, are a greater risk. It is unreasonable to opt for the greater rather than the lesser risk. Add to this that some of the fears anti vaccers have are irrational and the overall decision becomes irrational.

Either way some child somewhere will pay the price that is not how probability works! It is NOT the case that risks choices are irrelevant because negative consequences are bound to actually for someone on all options!

'Actualise' not 'actually', sorry.

I know Graphista but while there are still children being hurt by vaccines there will be anti vaxers. Can you see that their fear is not based on nothing? I think its unfair to dismiss that fear the way we do on threads like this. Most of the anyi vaxers are not unintelliigent but like all parents they have a selfish need to protect their children with valid reasons.

What is irrational about seeing a vaccine damaged child and not wishing it on your child?

My 2 year old is unvaccinated. I had shingles a few months ago and although there was a risk of him getting chicken pox from me the GP said the chances were minimal. You have to touch to transfer it, it's not airborne. We slept in same bed and he didn't get it. So if it's covered it will be fine.

Definitely give me the choice to the Mum.

I haven't said it's based on nothing but there's a greater risk of harm from the diseases than from vaccine injury.

It is nerve wracking, and one of the many decisions parents have to make knowing there's potential risk either way.

My dd is the age where the mmr was being thought to possibly be risky re autism/Bowel disease etc but I still got her vaccinated. My mother lost a sibling to whooping cough, then when my sister was due her vaccine there was a worry about the vaccine, she was still vaccinated.

Because the risks of the illnesses causing harm including death are higher.

Boo - "An adverse reaction from a vaccine is a minuscule risk, adverse consequences from the many diseases vaccines protect from.. are a greater risk."

Have you not understood my posts at all? I am not talking about refusing ALL vaccines. I'm talking about refusing the UNNECESSARY ones such as rubella and chicken pox.

"especially given the risk of a population which is losing its herd immunity"

The "greater good" argument is ethically indefensible when talking about a vaccine with possible risks that has no benefit to the child. I said this before and can say it again and again, until you get it.

You cannot say that a baby should take a serious risk (albeit with low probability) against her best interests, with no benefit to him, for the sake of some nameless adult he might or might not meet in the future.