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

How does anyone on here know for sure that the kid won't get TB? All it takes is that one unlucky moment and they may get it. You can't guarantee 100% that they won't. And as it can have severe complications that can kill, I don't understand why you wouldn't. You cannot guarantee it won't happen. Can't guarantee it will either, but what if it does?

I know someone who had a Kenyan arrive at their school to be a teacher. They tested everyone in the school for TB because of where the teacher came from. Some people had caught it.

It's too big of a risk to me to not get it. It may never happen, but the odds are not good with how many people arrive in this country every day, not vaccinated. TB itself isn't what I'm most worried about, it's the complications that can lead to meningitis. All I say is if you knowingly don't bother, you have nothing to complain about if your child gets it, you had the chance to prevent it. There is no way I would put a child of mine at risk of meningitis. It's a horrible disease. All you have to look at are the pictures of the poor kids who contracted it before they could get the vaccination to protect them. They lose limbs usually, some lose their lives. It's not worth it to avoid a scar or to hope they won't get it.

It’s too big a risk young? Quick google shows in 2014 there were around 6,500 cases in the UK. Your perception of risk seems really off

I find that some people are so pro-vaccination they are disturbingly passionate about it with absolutely no reason or thought behind it.

I have a friend like this. Always banging on about vaccination - to us, her friends whose children have all been vaccinated.

I have stated my opinion over and over on this thread, clearly and logically. Healthcare professionals have backed me up but no, still they come banging the drum and calling me reckless.

BCG refusal is nothing like MMR refusal.
TB is hard to catch.
You can't catch it on the bus.
All children in Tower Hamlets (for example) are not at risk.
They blanket vaccinate to avoid discrimation. They do this to catch the children who are at risk.
The OP's child is not at risk.
You do not need to grab any vaccination that is offered to you.
It does leave a nasty wound - this is not a good reason for refusing it but it is the case and I couldn't countenance doing that to my baby when I absolutely knew they didn't need it.

My DC were BCG vaccinated because my FIL had reoccurring TB throughout his life. We also lived in Asia, ME and Africa so getting the vaccination was a no-brainer. If your DC intend to travel one day they will never have to have it done again.

So cherry 6500 cases is still not 0. And that's 4 years ago have you got any more up to date numbers? There's still a risk even if its a small one.

Your choice to not bother. But I would. As I said in my first post ages ago, there was only a small risk of an 18 year old dying from flu. She still died. You can't reduce that risk to 0, so I don't understand why you would gamble with your kids life.

The immunity from the BCG vaccination lasts 15 years. I would take the vaccination for my children because who knows where they will travel in their twenties? The NHS website says that the vaccination isn't very effective in those older than 16, so it seems like a missed opportunity to say no if there are no reasons to think your child is at risk from the vaccination and you are only concerned about the scarring.

I actually skipped my BCG at school. How stupid honestly!
I feel like a twat for being the one without a scar, i dont know anyone who hasnt had it.

I got both my kids done, although we live in a low risk area and are white British. But to be fair we aren't British born and only two of our twelve immediate ancestors were born here! And one of those was in the East End... Because our kids were definitely going to be repeatedly exposed to people and a country who would be high risk, I requested it and was very relieved to get it. I will be honest and say that I might not have done, although a passionate vaxxer, if we had had absolutely no risk factors. TBH if the NHS thinks your area has risk factors, it may well be worth getting it. Speak to your GP about it?

If your DC intend to travel one day they will never have to have it done again.

This isn't true and restbiterepeat your post is completely contradictory. The advice from the NHS regarding travel is:

"The vaccine is recommended for those under 16 years of age who are going to live and work with local people for more than three months in an area where the incidence of tuberculosis is high."

So if your DC are going to travel at any time after school is isn't recommended, regardless of whether they had it as an infant. This is because it doesn't help protect against pulmonary TB in adults.

The BCG vaccine is only really useful in protecting babies from TB meningitis or miliary TB if they're high risk. That stat of 6500 is irrelevant without knowing how many of those were babies with TB meningitis or miliary TB.

Posters still aren't grasping the concept that BCG is not a protectorate for adult TB.

It's your choice. Personally we're paying privately to have our kids given the BCG because we think it safest.

How much does that cost Barbarian and how old will your children be when they are vaccinated? Ignore me if that's too nosey.

And the vaccine is recommended for anyone under 35, not 16.

I’m strongly pro vaccination and I wouldn’t worry about it - the BCG vaccine is largely ineffective except for specific risk factors - if your DD is not exposed to them then it’s a reasonable decision.

As an adult I regularly travel to areas with high TB rates and have not been revaccinated with BCG - it’s largely ineffective for pulmonary TB

If your DC intend to travel one day they will never have to have it done again.

Well, I never said that for a start.

I haven't costed it yet because we won't get it done til next year. They'll be 11 and 13. Paid £250 each for a course of rabies vaccination 2 years ago (that was for a holiday) so hoping it'll be similar.

NHS UK says this:

BCG vaccination is rarely given to anyone over the age of 16 – and never over the age of 35, because it doesn't work very well in adults.

Which maybe I misunderstood to mean it's increasingly less effective, sorry. I suppose there could be a number of reasons for that.

If you are low risk, like most of us, yet insist on having the vaccine, you’re just a taking funds you don’t need from the NHS. Unless you’re paying privately, which assume all the vaccine fans are so they can get the full complement of available vaccines not just those on the NHS.

No resbiterepeat you didn't, I meant but your post was contradictory. I meant expatmigrant's comment was wrong and your post was contradictory. If it only lasts 15 years it's not going to help people travelling in their twenties. My quote about travel advice is taken directly from the NHS travel website:

www.fitfortravel.nhs.uk/advice/disease-prevention-advice/tuberculosis.aspx

Well a 13 year old would be protected until they were 28. I did all my 'risky' travelling in my early twenties. I think I will get it done privately for my children, if it's not offered.

If you are low risk, like most of us, yet insist on having the vaccine, you’re just a taking funds you don’t need from the NHS. Unless you’re paying privately, which assume all the vaccine fans are so they can get the full complement of available vaccines not just those on the NHS.

And potentially cost them more having to fix you if you become ill. That makes so much more sense.

They won't be protected until they're 28. It will offer protection that will vary from none whatsoever to 80%, from anything to a few years to 15 in exceptional cases of immunity and will only be marginally useful if your DC are planning on living in a high risk area for 3 months or more. If your or BarbarianMum's children aren't going to do that, it's a waste.

And besides this OP is about the pros and cons of BCG for infants.

But the point is young, you won’t become ill.

I haven't had it because I'm Australian, and my kids haven't had it either because we were outside of a London TB danger zone when they were little. I think you should have it done as it's being offered, but I don't think it's as serious an issue as other vaccinations - which I view as being absolutely essential.

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

Did you read anything I wrote, DietCoke? They don't think any such thing. However, she lives in an area where a sufficient number of children may be at risk that it's worth making the vaccine available. Not the same thing at all.

I can't see a good reason for doing so, the fact her sister lives just outside the area is irrelevant.

It's relevant to her question, insofar as OP is trying to understand the apparent contradiction in their contrasting situation. If she has been reading the thread properly, she will probably now have a better grasp of that than you.

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?

I did not 'cast doubt' on whether she (or rather her kids) should have it. I said it would not necessarily be irresponsible if she chose not to. I explained the factors I would take into account. They may well balance differently for her than for me.

I don't care if you listen to me or believe me or whatever, but I do not appreciate having words put into my mouth.

OP's child is not at risk from TB so it is entirely reasonable for her to decline it. The vaccine also offers poor levels of protection even if you are high risk. And it is the only vaccine which causes a large puss filled lump on babies' arms that lasts up to 8 weeks post vaccination. So i can see why patents make a reasonable choice to not give their children it.

If you are living with people from high risk countries in poor overcrowded accommodation then sure, vaccinate. ( or if you are homeless, or an IVDU), then vaccinate, but the NHS can only make a guess from your postcode whether you are these things and in London especially that is difficult as there are rich and poor areas in close proximity.

So they offer it to certain postcodes where high risk people live. Buy if you research it you can see what your child's risk is and you do t have to agree to advice that is given at a population level if you don't fit that demographic. TB of the type the vaccine provides (small) protection from is extremely hard (impossibile) to catch unless you live in very close proximity with someone with it for a prolonged period of time.