To not vaccinate my child with BCG?

[SandyBabyToes]

I say this because SIL lives 5 minutes down the road and her area are completely exempt from it

I asked one of my local health professionals why we were in the catchment area for it and he said it was to do with a lot of immigration control, hence the vaccine being offered.

But, we don't go to that side of our town (it's a big town), and we don't mix in that area (it's not a short way away).

And even if we did and that slight chance would be the reason for it, why doesn't SIL's area get offered it when she's literally in spitting distance.

Taking all this into account, I'm not really comfortable with my DC having it. It's not a nice vaccine to have and often leaves a scar

A lot of people on here absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

"The majority of people exposed to TB will either fight the bacteria off, or will carry it within their bodies without getting sick and without becoming infectious. This is known as latent TB infection. Most people who get TB have had a prolonged exposure to an infectious person – usually someone in the same household. TB cannot be caught through everyday travel on the bus or Tube, or through spitting."

This is from London.gov.uk website

I live in an area where there is a choice of 2 hospitals to give birth in. It is offered to babies born in one of those hospitals. You cannot get it if you give birth in the other hospital, or indeed at home- even if you lived next door to the vaccinating hospital, or if you met any of the criteria they have used to decide that Hospital 1 needs to vaccinate newborns.

bashstreetkid take a look at my recent post. You're really not going to catch tb from going on the tube.

If your area has decided it's important enough to pay for (when they have the option to not offer), that would be good justification for me.

I had it as a baby in an immigrant-high area and was possibly the only one not to subsequently need BCG as a teenager (in a different area) when we got it at school. I have a teeny weeny scar compared to those friends.

From the same source:

1.3 The people who are most at risk of developing active TB disease are people whose immune systems have been weakened. This makes it difficult for the body to fight off the infection or keep the bacteria in a latent state. People with chronic poor health due to lifestyle factors are more likely to suffer from weakened immune systems. These factors include smoking, poor nutrition, stress, and drug or alcohol abuse. Many people in high-risk groups, such as rough sleepers, have a number of co-existing health problems which make them particularly susceptible to TB. TB is strongly linked with deprivation. Overcrowded and poorly ventilated living conditions make it easier for TB to spread in the air. This can affect people who live in crowded or sub-standard accommodation, as well as prison populations and people who sleep rough or in hostels.

I'd take my chances with the BCG any day than risk TB. I had mine about 40 years ago. Tiny indented scar, hardly noticeable.

1.5 There is a clear link between TB and migration. While more than 80 per cent of London TB cases occur in people who were born abroad, it is unlikely they brought active (infectious) TB into the country: people from high incidence countries must be free of active TB to get a visa to enter the UK. We do not know, however, how many people are coming to London with latent TB. It is not feasible or cost- effective to screen everybody at the border for this, and those with latent TB do not present an immediate public health risk.

EmpireVille, your own quote uses terms like "the majority" and "usually". There is no suggestion that there is zero risk in the absence of prolonged contact. Plus you still don't know that your child won't have prolonged contact with someone infectious at schools and playgroups.

Shall I tell you why they vaccinate all babies in boroughs with high immigration from India, Pakistan and Somalia?

They don't want to stigmatise families from those countries who are living in poverty. TB is considered to be a disease of poverty.

The comment made by the poster about living in a predominantly white rich area is actually perfectly acceptable.

TB affects poor migrants from south-east Asia to an overwhelming extent.

You won't catch tb from
Public transport, you require a prolonged level of exposure to catch it. Someone coughing on you won't do it.

Also BCG does not protect you from respiratory TB so that nurse in Pakistan still would have got it, as would that infertile midwife because it is ineffective in adulthood. As will all of us who pointlessly lined up at 13 for BCG, as will all our vaccinated babies in adolescence if they are unlucky enough to have a prolonged exposure to TB.

BCG protects infants and young children from tuberculin meningitis if they have a prolonged exposure to somebody infected or carrying a latent TB infection. This is more likely in areas or countries where TB rates remain high. Hence why we vaccinate infants who live, will travel to or have relatives in area of high risk.

I think I'm swaying more on the side of having it now, however, I'm curious and quite worried that my SIL hasn't been offered for her DC. Since we are the same area. We even share the same bus stop

I suggested talking to your doctor earlier in the thread - that might be a good time to ask if your SIL's children should get the vaccination.

Mine had it because they had a parent/grandparent born in high risk countries. Neither of those people had lived in that country past the age of 2 but the HVs still recommended my children have the vaccination simply because we'd checked that box. A few weeks later we saw a hospital paediatrician about something else and he said 'I wish you'd asked your doctor before you said yes - your children really didn't need this vaccination.'

One of my DCs had it and the younger not as we had moved areas when he was born. However my neighbour, who originates from an out of Europe country affected by TB, kids got it.

My DS1 did get quite a bad scar as his wound got infected and horrible but I really don't think it will effect him in any way

I would still have vaccinated DS2 if we were offered it.

Your child would have to do more than play all day with that child. They would have to live with them, share towels and utensils with them and exist in cramped conditions with them.

Your child would also have to have a weakened immune system for this to be a problem.

I'm not saying anything outrageous here. Don't take what I'm saying to be in some way racist. It's a simple fact. Cramped conditions and poor health is how TB spreads.

Sorry, my comment about exposure to a child at nursery was to bashstreet

I have Lupus syndrome and it's not something I could have.

You casually drip-fed this in. Since you are more vulnerable to TB that's all the more reason to get your child vaccinated!

You are being offered it and your neighbour isn't because governments and the law have to draw sharp boundaries in a fuzzy world.

As for the argument that the vaccine doesn't provide 100% protection and has its own risks, the same applies to just about anything that increases safety. The child seat you put your DC in in a car, for example.

Empire With what you've said in mind, how could My DC possibly catch TB then?

Well, it's a decision for you.

When I had my first child we lived in a London borough that offered the vaccination. I turned it down. I felt it was the one vaccine where the decision could be personal and I felt no obligation to vaccinate for herd immunity etc I did the research and felt (still feel) entirely fine about it.

Do your research.

I recall the other babies in my nct group who did have the vaccine all, without exception, had nasty wounds that took a long time to heal.

This would not be my primary reason to refuse it - obviously! But I felt it was a needless thing to do.

No form of nastiness was implied. If it's a daft comment, so be it. It wasn't daft it was offensive and racist. You directly implied that no-one white or wealthy ever immigrates to the UK and that all immigration is "non-white" which by the way is utter nonsense.

2 of my 3 children have had this vaccine as we lived abroad for a while. My 3rd child will be getting it privately.
I live in a rural fairly middle class predominantly white area and about 7/8 years ago there was a mass outbreak if latent TB at the local college ( no sixth forms here) . I work for the nhs and was involved in a couple of cases of very poorly teenagers being admitted to hospital with TB.
Why wouldn't you have the vaccination if you can - TB is Making a comeback and is often antibiotic resistant now.

Therefore, a very white area wouldn't really be at risk?

OP, I am in a borough in Kent that borders in an 'outer London' borough, as well as a teacher (am currently on mat leave) and I can categorically state that we have experience pupils with TB (and some have been white) for a few years now.

That makes no sense. Unless both SIL and me stayed wrapped in our own houses, that are minutes from each other, we do live in the same area.

You seem to be ignoring my posts that answer this for you, so I will mention it again - your SiL's area (that you write in your OP) will be a different borough/health care trust. Due to shortages of the vaccine worldwide and cost implications vs. need against statistics of cases of TB, a line has to be drawn somewhere for now and that line happens to be between you and your SiL.

It wasn't daft it was offensive and racist. You directly implied that no-one white or wealthy ever immigrates to the UK and that all immigration is "non-white" which by the way is utter nonsense

Oh come on, it wasn't racist at all. The fact still stands that TB is far far more likely in minority's ethnic groups. Of course white people can contract TB etc.

For the record, I did mean British white (which I probably should've been more clear about).

I'm of Hispanic origins. I don't take offence when certain medical things have been highlighted as more likely because of my background.

You seem to be making more of an argument that SILs children should have it than you are that yours shouldn't?

I do agree it can feel a bit daft to have arbitrary decisions about eligibility in built up conurbations where there might be a number of local authorities, where you might have one half of an estate or nursery school class in one set of rules and one in another.

Doesn't really matter if you take offense or not. What you said was offensive - be an adult about it.