To think she should have informed me her kids are unvaccinated?

[InMemoryOfSleep]

I went to antenatal yoga with a lovely teacher, who then visited my house with her two children once my baby was born. I also attended her baby group several times with my DS, and her children were also present.

I've just found out that she's an anti-vaxxer, and I cannot stop thinking about the fact that she exposed my tiny baby to her unvaccinated kids, without my knowledge! AIBU to think she should have informed me before bringing her kids to my house, knowing my baby was too young to have been vaccinated yet?

And what about all the babies at the group - I get that it's her personal choice to not vaccinate (though I am vehemently against it) but as she is acting in a professional capacity surely she should be informing parents that her unvaccinated children will be there? I certainly would have thought twice about taking my DS before his vaccinations.

mouse Because of this thing called 'the law'. they could try and exclude on that basis, but parents would be within their rights to take them to court over it.

Because of this thing called 'the law'.

As I implied in my post 'the law' can be adapted as many US states have. In Australia some benefit payments are reliant upon proof of vaccination. This type of law is perfectly possible in a western style democracy.

If a school made medical exemptions which bit of 'the law' would the school be breaking? I assume you are thinking discrimination but if clear exemptions for disability etc are made I can't see how a school would be breaking 'the law'. I would be interested to know which laws you think would be broken. Please explain.

Well because in the UK at this time, it is 100% legal for a person not to be vaccinated. So, thereby it isn't legal to not allow them into a school or anywhere else on that basis. If the parents were to take a school to court, it would be on human rights grounds i'd assume. I'm not a lawyer, but discrimation against a child recieving an education would be a place to start I should think.

This might be the case in a state school but the issue pertained to a private school. The child would not be denied an education, just education at that particular school. Private schools select pupils on a range of criteria, vaccination status would just be another one. The pupil would not be denied a human right in the same way that failing an entrance exam does not deny you an education.

It is legal to not be vaccinated in both the US and Australia but non vaccinated children are excluded from certain activities and institutions.

Maybe anti vaxxers could have their own schools. I wouldn't want my child learning about science there, but each to his/her own!

mouse you could be right, i guess we would need someone with a test case to see how it fell in the courts. To me, it would be the same as saying that not letting someone work for a company because they were insert whatever thing here wasn't denying them a job, just a job at that company and I don't think that flies, but I'm no legal expert. At the moment its fairly moot anyway, because as far as I'm aware there are no schools who do this.
apple You can know science and still be worried about science. they are not mutually exclusive things.

Maybe anti vaxxers could have their own schools. I wouldn't want my child learning about science there
they already have them they are called Steiner schools
where they teach you to plant according to phases of the moon and that children can't read till their big teeth come through

Great it's also legal not to pass a school's entrance exam or not to be well spoken at interview or have enough money to pay the fees. But that doesn't prevent schools from denying entrance to children who are in those categories.

drspouse and? I'm not sure I understand the relevance of those things.

as an aside, swedish children don't start school at all until they are 7, 'when their big teeth come through' and seem to do ok, so i don't understand the snide comment about that.

So kids should learn only that science is NEVER wrong. That "science" is static? That because the admittedly amazing smallpox vaccine eradicated smallpox, we should vaccinate for every childhood illness without questioning the effects on the immune system? That anybody does question "science" is somehow stupid and sub-normal?

That some of us are gravely - and I mean gravely - concerned that insufficient research can now be carried out comparing unvaccinated children?

That some of us are gravely concerned that so many children and adults have a plethora of autoimmune problems, allergies and other health issues barely seen decades ago? And no one for one minute thinks we should question whether there might just be an implication on a developing immune system of such a catalogue of constant vaccinations from a very young age (something like 36 in the US).

That the system of reporting of vaccine side effects is completely flawed as it only allows for catalogue of events happening very soon after the vaccine? That we have a significant number of teenage girls whose lives have been destroyed after receiving a vaccine supposedly to prevent cervical cancer but "science" tells us it's safe?

Is this the science you would like to teach? Is this how to teach our children?

I haven't had the MMR either.

Should I stay indoors?

Charlie, you're great at throwing out emotive impassioned questions.

If only you could answer any of them, your plea to "question and research" might not sound so hysterical and plain daft! Would you do this????!!!! Would you do that????!!!!! Nah, I'd rather google myself into a frenzy that the world and big pharma are out to get me!

Some of these signs from yesterday's science march illustrate the point perfectly. One of my friends is actually in this one, and another was in the Australian one (her sign said: "what do we want? Science based policies. When do we want them? After peer review!"

Ain't no peer review on a bit of homegrown googling!

www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/british-signs-from-the-march-for-science?utm_term=.yoJ5ory1Dw#.xep7oMDb4k

She shouldn't have come to your home with your newborn baby without telling you imo. I think that's very irresponsible and selfish.

The baby group is a tricky one. Your baby will be exposed to all sorts everywhere, the doctors, dentists, supermarkets, public transport...

YANBU though!

YANBU i have looked after very, very sick babies with pettusis (whooping cough). Most illnesses are cantagious before they are symptomatic. I consider not vaccinating healthy children stupid and selfish.

This thread is a bit hysterical (and I am 100% pro vac). As someone upthread stated, 'they are unvaccinated children, not plague dogs'. These diseases are most infectious when you are symptomatic and spread via saliva or other secretions. If you are worried avoid direct contact and practise good hand hygiene. These are also generally relatively mild diseases, even in newborns. The odds of her or the children being infectious and prodromal, coupled with the odds of the illness being passed on combined with the infection becoming serious implies the risks to you or your baby is vanishingly small.

skerrywind

I haven't had the MMR either.

Should I stay indoors?

No but you should stay away from pregnant women, do NOT go in their homes. If someone was unvaccinated due to medical issues and you were infectious you could cause serious harm to their unborn child.

You do know this don't you?

Mousse, Skerries might be too old for the MMR. I didn't have it either.

Too old to have been given it in childhood.

bumbleymummy
I didn't have it at school but I made sure I had it later.

My point was not about weather she is immunised but if she, like you, has not had it then is she careful? Are you careful?
If you had rubella and interacted with a pregnant woman who had not been vaccinated the consequences are potentially devastating.
You know you are not vaccinated would you be careful near pregnant women?

apple. Gee, thanks for the compliment.

Thing is, when I looked into it myself I was mighty spooked by the lack of decent research on this. Lots of soothing words that babies are subject to lots of bacteria from birth anyway. But decent sized studies, particular recently? Not so much!

I think this is mainly because of ethics. How would you find a control group of unvaccinated kids?

Do I think certain vaccines are great? Yes. Do I vaccinate my kids? Yes, in the main but I do my research (including speaking to my wonderful GP who largely agrees but can't say so publicly).

I simply do not accept that the current vaccination schedule is healthy for our children.

I had the diseases, mouse. As most people my age did. Either that or they had the rubella vaccine when they were 12/13. The MMR isn't the only way to get immunity.

Wow, some internet searches and a chat with a GP - not even an immunologist. That sure sounds more convincing than all the research and recommendations from bodies like the NHS and the CDC

What research have you read Applebite?

Er - I'm not the one telling people not to trust the medical experts, but to do research and "question them", bumble! I think it's incredibly irresponsible to spread that around as a good thing for everyone to do.

If you haven't read any of it yourself, I don't see how you can fave a problem with it. There may some things you would read and have questions about.

Did you read the vaccine inserts?