Anti vaxxers

[Tinhatsallround]

So the anti vaxxers seem to be out in force on social media at the moment and I'm finding it difficult to hold my tongue. I don't feel it's a choice in parenting that I can chalk up to a difference of opinion. AIBU to cut them out of my life and leave them to it? Or do I just change the subject when it cones up? I'm not sure I can stomach the selfishness of it.

Emily your 1 in 5 statistic didn't ring true with me as a teacher (secondary, but in a 3-18 school so I'd know if many if the small ones were diagnosed) so I checked. I can't find any evidence of that figure - could you link some?
I have found information from autism uk which puts the whole population figure at a little over 1% and the figure in children aged 9-10 at about the same. I also found other research which suggests any rise has now levelled off, reported here by the BBC.

emily I vaccinated my dc. In fact as soon as the meningitis jab was available I'd booked ds who was 15 in before they could send a letter. I was concerned about MMR though when he was little as Rubella imo should be given to girls at 13 as a single jab, as it was to me, before girls become sexually active. Boys don't really need it. The govt should offer single jabs to people who have valid worries. It shouldn't be all (MMR) or nothing.

bumbley I wonder if posters would be tempted to be less snotty with you if you were less rude. Just a thought.

Bumbley, you don't come right out and say it, no. You just drop your little nuggets everywhere, but never commit to a conclusion. The overall impression is v much, "if you did your research and read this, you wouldn't...". You appear on every vax thread and do this. Which means that a certain number of readers will probably go off and google and worry themselves sick!

If that's not your intention, then I'm sorry, but it is how you come across.

Well, it tends to be quite stark to be honest little. In the case I know, the baby was meeting every developmental milestone and then abruptly - wasn't.

But that is what happens regularly with autism anyway, whether the children concerned have been vaccinated or not.

The risks of vaccine damage are small, I get that. But then so are the risks of a non immunised child catching an illness and then passing it on to someone whose immune system is compromised. A parent who chooses not to vaccinate does indeed take some benefit from herd immunity and other people making a choice they were not willing to make, but there's not much they can do about the consequence of other parents decisions.

But the only reason that there is a small risk of someone catching an illness and passing it on to an immunocompromised person is because most people are vaccinated.

What about vaxxers don't seem to understand is that is everyone took the same decision as them, then yes cases of vaccine damaged kids would go down, but kids would be dying left right and centre of horrible diseases. The only reason that anti vaxxers can be loud and proud about their decision not to vaccinate is because they know their child will be protected by other parents making a different decision to them. They can be safe in the knowledge that their kids won't be vaccine damaged, and also know that their kid is protected by other parents risking vaccine damage for their own kids. They get the best of both worlds and somehow think this makes them more worthy?

There was a thread on here a while back about what people from the past would find most astonishing about life today. Lots of people said technology, phones, TV, instant information etc. But one poster said it would be the fact that a child dying before their 5th birthday is actually now a rare occurrence. I agree. I honestly think people just have no idea what things were like before vaccinations.

I don't really want to stick my nose into a row but on the flip side under a previous username point out that Bumbley has massively reassured me in the past discussing vaccinations

my child is vaccinated.

Just wanted to point out people respond differently. My personal stance is don't minimise risks, acknowledge them, take concerns very seriously rather than tell me how non existent they are and how rediculous I'm being for worrying about such a low statistic... but point out other risk factors that might increase or reduce risk - family history, Childs general health, allergies etc... And then do the same regarding the benefits of receiving which particular vaccine, the timing of receiving it a certain age etc. Back it up if you're my GP... Then... I will trust you

At least that was my journey from not wanting to vax to deciding it was for the best for my family

I should add to my above post that i do think that it's important that parents to be able to raise concerns and ask questions without judgement, and people should be able to research (although watching 'VAXXED' doesn't count!)

Believe it or not up to now we haven't bothered with the flu nasal vaccine for our kids, apart from this year when DD had a child in her class with a severely immunocompromised close relative. The reasons were our children are otherwise very healthy with apparently excellent immune systems, the vaccination program (particularly to start with) wasn't really widespread enough to create enough herd immunity, it only protects against one strain of flu etc, so were just unsure of the value of it. As the program has widened, we may reconsider for next year.

But i feel this is different to just flat out refusing to take part in any vaccination program because you can rely on other people doing it to protect your kids looked up some stuff on the internet which said that vaccines are evil.

One of my friends has an immunocompromised son ed and he didn't have the nasal flu vaccine at the same time as his classmates because the school were supposed to do it and messed up the schedule. He got very ill as lots of children in his school had he vaccine before he did and his mum wasn't informed so that she could get him done at the GP
But I suppose when people talk about anti vaxxers they don't consider things like the nasal flu vaccine For which I don't think uptake levels are as high as other vaccines.

According to this report uptake of the nasal flu vaccine is only 52% amongst people under 65 in England. It is a live vaccine so doesn't that mean that the 48% who don't have it are at increased risk of catching flu? A does of flu can be really serious for people with certain health conditions.
patient.info/doctor/influenza-vaccination

I don't think it's fair to assume that parents who choose not to vaccinate are automatically doing it because other parents do vaccinate so they believe they'll 'get away with it'.

It's more complicated than that, and while we can't get away from the fact that high immunisation levels amongst the general population may be a contributing factor to their choice not to vaccinate, it is still only one single factor in a decision that most parents take very seriously and give a lot of consideration to.

Why assume that these parents feel they are more worthy? Do parents regularly feel more worthy than other parents because they've made a parenting choice that differs from others? If I were going to make an assumption on this, which I try to avoid doing because I can't see in other people's heads, I'd think it was highly likely that some of these parents struggle to be confident in their choice the same as they could be with any major parenting decision, because they know they are choosing one risk over another.

It's more complicated than that, and while we can't get away from the fact that high immunisation levels amongst the general population may be a contributing factor to their choice not to vaccinate, it is still only one single factor in a decision that most parents take very seriously and give a lot of consideration to.

No, i am sure it's a mix of things. But i imagine that the fact that they know their will be protected by herd immunity makes the decision a hell of a lot easier for them.

Why assume that these parents feel they are more worthy? Do parents regularly feel more worthy than other parents because they've made a parenting choice that differs from others?

Ummmmmmm..........

But there is no herd immunity protection from flu if only 52% are having it. I know quite a few people opted out of their children having it because it is a live vaccine and there were Some concerns about it and they don't see flu as a serious illness. Flue can be fatal for some people. So are you saying that 48% of parents are anti vaxxers and are in some way immoral and wrong and think they are superior to the other 52%?

No, as i said my kids haven't had the flu vaccine (bar one situation) for the reasons i listed above, one of which being it doesn't provide herd immunity. I don't think this is because the uptake isn't enough, i think its because the vaccine isn't (or hasn't been up until recently) available to enough kids to provide that herd immunity.

The vaccine also only protects against one strain of flu. As the programme is at the moment it's questionable as to how effective it actually is, which is why lots of people don't bother. The nasal spray is live but a suppressed version which cannot actually cause flu as i understand it.

With diseases like measles, diptheria, polio etc there isn't much question as to the effectiveness of the vaccine programme as these diseases have all but been eradicated.

I am willing to be corrected on any of this by the way, i may have some of this wrong?

Herd immunity doesn't really exist though. Vaccine makers themselves admit their products do not impart lifelong immunity; this is why boosters exist. Most adults are without immunity, especially older generations who only had a few jabs as children. Unless I'm missing some information?

Thanks Confuscious

I think you're right about people responding difffrently to information. I'm the same as you in that I want to look at all the information so I can I weigh it up and make my decision.

Applebite, no that isn't my intention. I've said before that I think vaccines are absolutely fine for the majority of people. I just think that people should be able to make informed decisions and, for me, that means looking at all available info including risks of the diseases and how effective/long lasting the vaccines are. Maybe that comes across as a bit negative to you? I also think that any questions or concerns people have should be taken seriously and not just dismissed. After weighing everything up, most people will come down on the side of vaccinating anyway - even if they do decide to delay some or spread them out a bit more. Some people don't realise this is even a possibility so I think it's important to talk about so people know it doesn't have to be all or nothing.

I have no confidence in the flu mist. The CDC pulled it because efficacy was so poor. Why is the NHS using a duff product? www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/06/22/health/cdc-flumist-nasal-spray-flu-vaccine/index.html

The bit that's not quite right is some of the info in the flu vaccine.

It's not single strain, it's about 4 strains - those which the epidemiologists think wil, be the dominant ones in the next flu season (lots of number crunching and modelling goes in to that, and it's done globally so includes what strains are emerging in the Southern Hemisphere and the likelihood of transmission to the North.

They usually get it right, and the number of flu cases is cut significantly. A couple of years ago, the predictions were wrong, so the jab didn't suppress the number of cases of flu.

So yes, as it's always working on prediction - even though historically the prediction is normally right - it's not surefire as it is for diseases which do not mutate rapidly like flu.

It's only given to two second of the population at the moment, the 'superspreaders' (ie children) because if it's not so much in schools the overall spread is reduced considerably, and the vulnerable (elderly people, the pregnant, and those with certain underlying health conditions) to keep the death rates down and reduce the number of hospitalisations

Herd immunity doesn't really exist though. Vaccine makers themselves admit their products do not impart lifelong immunity; this is why boosters exist. Most adults are without immunity, especially older generations who only had a few jabs as children. Unless I'm missing some information?

But the diseases vaccinated against are still now very rare, so there must be enough people vaccinated to protect everyone against it, even adults who may no longer have immunity?

A couple of years ago, the predictions were wrong, so the jab didn't suppress the number of cases of flu.

Yes, i think things like this are probably why the uptake is lower. I wouldn't discount the flu vaccine but i think there are questions around its effectiveness that there aren't around other diseases. Also the fact that the strains mutate so frequently so each year is a bit of a game of prediction. I think this sets it apart from other vaccines and there are plenty of parents out there who have fully vaccinated their kids with the NHS programme but don't bother with the flu one at the moment.

But if a parent is offered flu vaccine for their child and opts out then they haven't fully vaccinated their child within the NHS programme - because the flu vaccine is part of the NHS programme for certain age groups and people with certain conditions. So are we saying that it is okay to be sceptical of the flu vaccine and opt out of it but not okay to opt out of anything else / delay anything else because you have concerns about it?

But if a parent is offered flu vaccine for their child and opts out then they haven't fully vaccinated their child within the NHS programme - because the flu vaccine is part of the NHS programme for certain age groups and people with certain conditions. So are we saying that it is okay to be sceptical of the flu vaccine and opt out of it but not okay to opt out of anything else / delay anything else because you have concerns about it?

People are sceptical about the flu vaccine because they question its effectiveness. You can't question the effectiveness of say the diphtheria or polio vaccines.

But people have other questions and concerns ed. Should we just ignore those? Should we not allow people to make informed Choices by making Sure that medical staff fully answer any questions that parents might have?
I said earlier, all my Children are fully vaccinated but I did delay some
Of the 12 Month immunisations as I think too many are given at once, especially given that one of my children had a significant reaction to the 2 month vaccines. Im not against vaccinations but I don't think that parents are always given enough information to properly decide what they want to do and I do think that too many immunisations are given together - particularly at 12 months.

But people have other questions and concerns ed. Should we just ignore those? Should we not allow people to make informed Choices by making Sure that medical staff fully answer any questions that parents might have?

Yes of course. Who is saying this shouldn't be the case? People's concerns should be addressed. What i object to is idiots sharing the 'VAXXED' film, or other anti vaccination stuff, and just scaremongering to validate their own decision with no real scientific evidence to back it up.

I do think that too many immunisations are given together - particularly at 12 months.

On what basis do you think too many immunisations are given at once? Genuine question - i don't know if too many are given at once?

I base my Opinion on it being too many at once on the fact that it is 4 injections and some of them are live and some of them are multi vaccines in the one injection. Since they added the additional meningitis vaccine more immunisations are given at 12 months than ever before.
My youngest child was very unwell for a few days after his 2 month injections and a little unwell and his 3 and 4 month injections (he also has significant allergies and digestive issues) so I felt the 12 month vaccines was too much in one go for his small body. Allergies are a sign of possible immune issues so I felt it important to not overload his body by giving so many things at once. I'm not saying that my though process is correct but in the absence of any reliable independent research and a medical service which doesn't answer concerns like mine I felt I had to do what I felt best and delay part of the 12 month immunisations.
I'm not going about spreading an anti vax message as I actually support vaccinations but IMO we do give too many at once, mainly for cost and NHS resources reasons.
Unfortunately when you try to research vaccinations you get strong and biased arguments on both sides and not much in between to help with making informed choices.