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

I had a BCG as a child and I don't have a scar. Make sure your DC can't pick the scabs.

course not

I'd be glad my child was being offered it and if I were your sil I'd be asking why my children weren't / paying privately if possible.

I'll never understand why people don't want their children to get all the protection possible from horrible diseases. People have genuinely forgotten just how awful some of these illnesses are. What's a sore arm in comparison to death or permanent disability.

unfinishedkitchen nobody is antivax on this thread. One person (me) with maybe 1 or 2 others has said they refused it. My children have had all other vaccines including cpox which I paid for.

Turning down BCG for a child who has no chance of getting it couldn't possibly cause an increase in its prevalence. You are thinking of MMR but that's not this thread.

No need to be so shouty and angry. It's completely fine and not harmful to anyone else if I turn down BCG for my children. This is not a herd immunity issue.

Btw, your "Fiona from nct" crack sounds really sneery.

unfinishedkitchen nobody is antivax on this thread. One person (me) with maybe 1 or 2 others has said they refused it. My children have had all other vaccines including cpox which I paid for.

Yes - I'm not antivax either. My kids have had every vax offered, including BCG, although (as I said up there) afterwards their NHS consultant paediatrician said they didn't need it.

It's a bit odd to see people arguing with something that hasn't actually been said.

Or you could just take the NHS advice onboard lupo

I used to be a doctor, DietCoke, so I think I probably understand the NHS advice since I used to be the one giving it. I was explaining the background to it, which I hoped might be helpful to the OP's decision making process. If you're not interested in the epidemiological facts, that's fine, of course, not everyone is, but it does undermine your claim to be offering an informed opinion.

I work with healthcare students, who have to be vaccinated before placements in hospitals, NHS sites, 3rd sector, etc. We’re just reaching the point in the population where those who missed out on MMRs due to ‘scares’ as they’re young adults.

It’s a real issue as there are mumps and measles outbreaks every year in our four university City. It used to be meningitis but they’re all now vaccinated. It might be TB next. We’re seeing a fair number of latent TB cases now.

I’d have my (imaginary) kids vaccinated. Two of my mum’s friends died at Uni in the 70s. I wouldn’t want to be those people.

I suppose what I’m saying is that it’s maybe not just now for worrying. It’s the future - you don’t know where they’ll end up.

My dc had it at birth as dh is Asian. I'm sure we don't vaccinate routinely due to cost.

But we also don't screen people moving here from countries where it is prevalent. If it's on offer you should have it.

I live in Sweden and there have been several outbreaks of tb at nurseries and pre-schools in the past decade. Many children have contracted the drug resistant type that is hard to treat and some have required over a year of treatment. Most cases have been traced to Eastern European staff and families.

My dd had to have it before starting her hcp training in the respiratory illness department as it is on the rise.

The other thing that is on the rise at the moment in Sweden is measles - there was a big outbreak over Christmas at the main hospital in Gothenburg on the post natal and paediatric wards. Around 50-60 affected

You're looking at it the wrong way round I think. If I was her I'd be using the fact your children are being given it to make the case that my children should be given it to. Why would you not want to protect your children? It's a tiny scar and a very safe vaccine.

But we also don't screen people moving here from countries where it is prevalent.

The UK does screen people from high risk countries
www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa

Meh. I had bcg as a teen. I still caught tb in my 20's. I live in a city where it is not routinely offered to anyone anymore. After I'd been diagnosed, they gave my kids their bcg. Couldn't quite see the point

Fair enough Lupo, but I am intrigued why you feel that, in this case, OP is ok to take the position to ignore NHS advice?
Surely the guideline is there for a reason, the NHS aren't overly keen on wasting money so why would they in this instance?

Oh, and I've no idea where I caught it. Never known anyone else with it, not been in any sort of contact with anyone with active tb. I just randomly caught it. It was hell. But clearly, in my case at least, the bcg was pointless as I caught it 10 years later

Dietcoke

Vaccination recommendations are usually made at the population not the individual level.

We lived in a country where hep b vaccine was routinely given at birth. I declined for my dd as i knew her risk of contracting hep b was effectively zero as i didnt have it and i knew i didnt have it.

Because the advice, as I explained, is given at a population level. It does not apply equally and evenly to every individual within that population. Individuals who are motivated to consider their own specific risk factors compared with the population as a whole can make a decision tailored to their individual circumstances that might reasonably be considered to be a better decision for them than just following the general advice for the population as a whole. It is different from the way we would advise someone to think about, say, MMR, because the transmissibility of, say, measles is very different from that of TB, plus there is herd immunity etc. to consider, as has been said upthread.

OP and her sister clearly live somewhere on the cusp of two areas that have different epidemiological profiles as far as TB is concerned, so it's not unreasonable for OP to consider how well or badly she and her family fit the demographic profile that has given rise to the offer of vaccination. imo she might reasonably consider her living conditions and that of immediate family, any prolonged social contacts her children might have (e.g. relatives they stay with, lodgers, etc.), family medical history, likelihood of travel/migration out of the UK (BCG is compulsory in some countries). I would not consider ethnic composition of the area in terms of friends/school population, and definitely wouldn't think twice about scarring. I also disagree with pp who have said that the BCG isn't actually very effective, although there will always be individuals who for whatever reason don't mount an adequate immunological response.

You are right Coke that there is a financial component to BCG policy, but only in the sense that the expense of responding to mass outbreaks is statistically more likely to arise in some areas than others for the reasons I posted originally, not because everyone in those areas is so at risk that it is better to vaccinate than not.

All of that said, I personally would probably vaccinate in the OP's shoes, but pp who have chosen not to after weighing up the facts are not imo being irresponsible. It is not at all like the other childhood imms. HTH

I have a crater in my arm thanks to my BCG. It has had zero effect on my life. I'm sure that I couldn't say the same if I'd ever had TB.

I had the bcg done at 14, so 15 years ago. I don’t think a single person in my Year who had the vaccination scarred

I've had it and no scar. just vaccinate your child . my grandmother had tb at 19. her lungs never fully recovered.

But lupo, her local nhs think her child may be at risk, that is why they are offering it, why refuse it? I can't see a good reason for doing so, the fact her sister lives just outside the area is irrelevant. I don't really see why you seem to be casting doubt on whether op should have it, when you yourself would have it for your children?

But lupo, her local nhs think her child may be at risk, that is why they are offering it

No they don't and that's not why.

Ok empire...so they are offering it for no reason at all? Just because they feel like wasting money?

Why do you want to go round in circles? Haven't you read the thread? It's been explained to you why the OP's child, based on what she has said, would not be considered to be at risk.

Every child is offered the vaccination because targeting children who are at risk is considered to be discrimination and possibly stigmatising.

I work in paediatrics. There's a lot of misinformation here. TheDisillusionedAnarchist's posts are spot on.

BCG offers poor protection for respiratory TB late in life.

A failure to give BCG does not mean you're more at risk of TB later in life. Failing to give a child BCG is not remotely comparable to real anti-vaxxers failing to give MMR etc.

BCG offers the best protection, about 70%, against disseminated forms such as miliary TB and meningitis.

These variants are only likely to be caught by an infant living in close proximity for a significant period of time with someone with active TB.

BCG protection is commonly thought to decline over 10 to 20 years, so as previously mentioned those cases of adults getting it would not have been prevented by infant BCG vaccine.

The efficacy of BCG vaccine in pulmonary disease has ranged from no protection to 80% in controlled trials.

The aim of providing vaccines to infants in certain populations or geographical areas is to protect them if they have a relative who may travel or be affected.

When I worked in a particular area of the UK the policy at that time was to offer it to any baby whose parent was from a country deemed high risk: Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe. As it happened that encompassed most babies in that area, but there were plenty who didn't need it and weren't eligible (had to put on a yellow card). It may have changed since then.

Where I work now, BCG is not routinely recommended to infants of migrant parents is not routinely offered because of the uncertainty of the risks and benefits. It is not recommended at all to babies of non-migrant, non-travelling parents.

I used to administer BCG. It takes practice. I messed up quite a few I remember.

There's a world wide shortage of BCG vaccine.

2.5% of people get injection site abscesses.
1% get lymphadenitis.

In summary the BCG is a difficult vaccine, it doesn't fit the rules of the standard vaccine debate, and I think calling the OP names based on her asking questions when there's little understanding expressed by posters here is a bit unfair.

I’m very pro vaccination but it’s really worrying to see on this thread how many posters are blindly vaccinating with no real knowledge and far worse, scolding others for not doing the same, just because it’s a vaccination therefore must be done.

OP having read the information on the thread I wouldn’t bother in your shoes.