SIL has not vaccinated my nieces

[Pittcuecothecookbook]

My baby has been booked in for her vaccinations soon. I asked my sister in law, who has primary school aged kids, about the experience and I was flabbergasted when she said she didn't get their jabs. I can't quite believe it!

When I asked why, she said the risks outweighed the pros but she struggled to articulate what the risks were beyond 'potential death'. I said that that was also the downside of not getting the jabs too! She said she was persuaded when her friend said that the jabs couldn't be undone if her kids had a reaction.

AIBU to be shocked and quite disappointed about this? I'm not looking forward to it by any means, but the eradication of many awful diseases and protection against those still prevalent is surely a non negotiable?

When her kids don't get these diseases, she'll be vindicated but that will likely be because the majority have had their jabs rather than proving jabs were unnecessary.

I imagine I'll get over this - my child will be protected - but I'm just at hearing this news.

"Yes, we live in a world where you can't force medical procedures on or insert things into the bodies of living human beings, adult or child, for the benefit of third parties.

That's the way it should be, really, and people should pretty much just deal with it."

That's fine. The rest of civilised society has the right not to want to be exposed to the risk. Anti vaxxers should pretty much just deal with it.

That's fine. The rest of civilised society has the right not to want to be exposed to the risk. Anti vaxxers should pretty much just deal with it.

You're assuming the rest of society is like you, though.

We'd probably agree on vaccinations themselves, but I would consider cutting people's benefits off fucking mental, and definitely definitely DEFINITELY more likely to harm people.

Some people don't give their children animal products when milk has proven links to reducing infant mortality, shall we cut their benefits off, too? What about people who smoke?

Let's make everyone better with lunatic authoritarianism.

Actually some countries have mandatory vaccination policies, enforced with the use of fines, withdrawal of state benefits, limiting access to childcare/education, even giving financial incentives to do so.

In 3 USA states it's mandatory for access to state education, with religious/philosophical objections not accepted in these states.

They all accept as far as I can tell, exemption on genuine medical grounds.

How is it "evil control freakery" when it PROTECTS people? These policies generally don't really prevent people from choosing not to vaccinate if they're adamant, but they do mean they're faced with direct consequences to that decision, usually which also protect other children (by preventing them from contact with unvaccinated children).

I'd actually like it if there was a damn good documentary and public broadcast programme showing the effects of these diseases on unvaccinated children. I suspect that would increase uptake of vaccination a good deal.

One person said that (not me). What about nursery and mainstream education which is what most of the posts are about? Or do you think only unwell children should live with the consequences of anti vax decisions?

• by said "that" I mean about benefits.

But there is risk from vaccination. This isn't in dispute. It actually really annoys me when people try to state that vaccines are 100% safe, 100% effective and/or diseases are 100% deadly - none of this is true. It was discovering this fact which made me feel anxious and alarmed about vaccines, several years ago, and it's what I believe is behind the fears of many parents who refuse vaccines for their children. However, the big picture is that the risks from the currently advised vaccinations are lower than the risks of not being vaccinated against those diseases. It is imperative that parents with concerns have access to the full picture, not one which is full of holes.

Banning discussion doesn't help allay parents' fears. When I was anxious about vaccination myself, what I felt was censorship actually pushed me away from the side of accepted medical evidence because I felt I wasn't getting the full story and therefore couldn't trust that side of things. It felt as though the antivax side was being more honest, because they seemed more willing to present a full picture. I can now see that there was also a lot of misinformation coming from that side, which was unhelpful. However, what I really wanted was for somebody with medical/scientific knowledge to explain to me that yes, there is a risk, but on balance it's a lower risk and here is why. I have never found that information in an accessible space. I had to come to that conclusion by myself which took many years. My older child was unvaccinated for longer than he ought to have been, because it took time for me to find and process this information. Even at the time I decided to get him caught up, I was not sure I was doing the right thing, I did not feel confident, I did not feel there was a clear tip on the scale.

Thankfully, I do have more information now and I understand the relative risks better and this enables me to feel confident and happy accepting preventative treatment like vaccination for my children. But dismissing people's fears and concerns doesn't make them go away. Addressing and explaining them patiently does help, especially if you can get to them in time before they get sucked too far into the rabbithole.

Ah sorry MairyHole, somehow I thought that was you!

It's ok that we disagree on the whole reprisals thing, Graphista, and I'm thankful they're not a thing in the UK at this point. I wouldn't too dead set against vaccknations as a requirement for nurseries etc although I think it's overstepping the mark a bit where it might do harm (Not prepared to use France or the USA as a benchmark on every matter). The benefits thing said in a PP I would be very strongly against, that would be dangerous.

Can I just say that I LOVE the Drs, nurses, scientists etc who pepper this thread with extremely clear explanations of why vaccination is essential. I particularly love any links to research and relevant articles. I have yet to see an anti vaxxer post anything other than sweeping generalisations and propaganda. My own ( completely unscientific) view is that many anti vaxxers are presumably benefiting from the vaccinations that they were given as children while simultaneously denying their own children - it’s incomprehensible. I wonder if the OPs brother and SIL were vaccinated themselves? Children are not chattel they have human rights.

That was me advocating benefit denial. And I stand by it. If you can have your benefits cut off for refusing to work, why not for refusing to combat horrible diseases? That is fucking mental.

What about the objection to the spreading of anti-vax lies, ImAldoot, or do you think that’s OK too?

But there is risk from vaccination. This isn't in dispute. It actually really annoys me when people try to state that vaccines are 100% safe, 100% effective and/or diseases are 100% deadly - none of this is true.

This is what I was referring to with my "Brian Cox" jibe - there is a great deal of sneering by ignorant people when they think they are right "because science".

There are risks to a greater or lesser degree, and how you weight those risks can vary according to circumstance and population. People must do this in good faith for their own children.

I am pro vaccine, but I have had a brush with these risks - our youngest suffered a condition associated with vaccinations that kills some babies, one of the most terrifying times of my life. She has subsequently had other vaccinations and I remain in the same camp, but I have first hand experience of the opposing risks so I acknowledge they exist.

Of course I could just be making that up, nobody has any reason to believe me, I can only promise that I, the real person behind this screen am telling the truth about that, take it or leave it. I haven't stopped vaccinating in any case, but it takes some bloody courage to do so.

She’s totally contradicting herself with this statement. If her kids don’t need it because everyone else does it then herd immunity is a valid argument which she then says is not proven.

“this was actually the justification she gave - if everyone else does it, my kids don't need it. The convo was civil - she said she didn't see the point as everyone else is vaccinated and it can make healthy babies unwell/kill them. She said that herd immunity is not proven and she doesn't trust GPs.”

I would speak to your brother and ask him what he thinks and whether he was under the impression they had been vaccinated. My husband hasn’t been present at any of our kids vaccinations and took my word they’d taken place, he could look in their red book but I don’t think he did to prove we’d actually been.

That was me advocating benefit denial. And I stand by it. If you can have your benefits cut off for refusing to work, why not for refusing to combat horrible diseases?Thatis fucking mental.

I think some people are overly authoritarian and eager to punish people on benefits, and if it wasn't this issue it would be something else that people should lose their benefits for. This sentiment is very strong in our society right now, and has a human cost.

I am neither an anti vaccination person or on benefits, but wrong is wrong.

In 3 USA states it's mandatory for access to state education, with religious/philosophical objections not accepted in these states.

They all accept as far as I can tell, exemption on genuine medical grounds.

It's fairly complex here. All states exempt for medical reasons with documentation. Most offer a religious exemption, as there are some small religious groups that prohibit vaccination, but the documentation required is substantial. Many states reserve the right to exclude unvaccinated students from school during an outbreak. Here's a summary of current policies with a nice graphic:

[[https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/vaccinations.html
State School and Childcare Vaccination Laws]]

The trend has been to toughen restrictions, usually driven by outbreaks caused by low vaccination rates. California went from having some of the weakest requirements to a very strict set following a massive measles outbreak in 2014

After a Debacle, How California Became a Role Model on Measles

It's good that states have flexibility like this. It allows for more rapid change and provides data on how the vaccination requirements impact disease incidence for specific cohorts.

Plimmy I love your ignorance in assuming that only people who are anti vax are unemployed or on benefits

However, what I really wanted was for somebody with medical/scientific knowledge to explain to me that yes, there is a risk, but on balance it's a lower risk and here is why. I have never found that information in an accessible space.

Did Mr Google not find this for you from the US CDC?

Making the Vaccine Decision

Or this from the Mayo Clinic?

Childhood vaccines: Tough questions, straight answers

There is really no shortage of good, reliable data and discussion on this topic.

Can I just say that I LOVE the Drs, nurses, scientists etc who pepper this thread with extremely clear explanations of why vaccination is essential. I particularly love any links to research and relevant articles.

Aww, thanks Spirited.

It's FAR from just France (where there's a real problem with people not understanding how vaccines work!) or the USA.

"The benefits thing said in a PP I would be very strongly against, that would be dangerous." Not vaccinating is dangerous!

I do think more honesty would be a good thing but then if we're going to be honest about the potential risks of vaccination then anti-vaxxers need to accept COMPLETE honesty about the FACT that it's better to vaccinate even with those risks than it is to not with the WORSE and MORE LIKELY risks of that!

Personally as someone who is on benefits I think in this country that wouldn't make much difference, as it seems to be mainly middle class, non benefit receivers that are anti-vaxxers.

Making it mandatory for access to childcare and education I'd absolutely be on board with as a 'natural consequence' type deal as it also protects the other children particularly those who CAN'T be vaccinated.

Nope, it didn't - those resources weren't available in 2008. I'm very glad that they are available now. I'll save them in order to pass on to anybody who I come across who is questioning. At the time that I was looking, major health bodies did not provide information acknowledging that there was any vaccine "debate" to be had, so while there was information about vaccination of course none of it mentioned or acknowledged the things I was scared of, which made me feel like they were saying they didn't exist. I also admit that at the time I had a much worse understanding than I do now about how to assess a source for validity.

No, you’re just wrong.

I am saying that getting state benefits - including tax incentives (that’s for you Sue) - should be linked to a willingness to participate in the most important public health policy of all: the prevention of infectious diseases that kill, disable and cause suffering to (mostly) children. I’m not saying that smoking, bad eating, drinking or dangerous sports should attract social penalties. Your authoritarianism arguments are a crock of shit.

If you allow disease to spread by allowing vermin and rubbish to build up you can be prosecuted, fined and imprisoned. But you think it would be wrong for the state to withhold advantages for encouraging the spread of childhood communicable diseases? 🤦‍♀️

Where’s the response to my question about stamping on the spreading of false, misleading, dangerous nonsense about vaccines?

So if you were told you could only have benefits and access education if you exposed your child to mumps/measles/whooping cough/polio etc etc would you do it? If you genuinely believed something would significantly harm your child would you expose them for the sake of getting benefits or accessing education? Probably not. I doubt it would make a huge difference to cut off benefits or education to actual anti vaxxers. It would only prompt those who can't be bothered, not those who believe it will cause harm.

I remember the first ever thing I came across from a pro-vaccine side which acknowledged that vaccine-anxious parents had real fears because it filled me with such relief and a sense that I wasn't going mad - it was that article: "Parents: You are being lied to". Which came out in about 2014, I believe? That was probably the first time I started to tip from "Whaaat but vaccines are scary and I just don't know what the risks are" to "Oh, okay, that actually makes sense and isn't as scary as I thought at all". And it was just a blog post - not really a reliable good source at all but I appreciated that it had a lot of links and I spent a long time going through them and seeing all of the other information which I'd really struggled to find on my own.

Misscontrary

It all depends how you see vaccination within the context of citizenship. You can’t get anything very much without being a member of, and contributing to a society. There’s nothing controversial in that.

Not vaccinating without a good reason should attract social penalties. That’s not forcible vaccination, just a choice anti-vaxxers should face.

Since the risk of vaccinating is vanishingly slight and there’s compensation for vaccine injury - but none for disease injury - your argument about choosing one risk over another is bogus.

I wouldn’t waste my time replying to you about anything that needs intelligence to understand and complicate your one track mind. You Like only to hear your own voice.

How heartening.

Bertie I'm sorry that's just not true. I was researching the mmr vaccine in 2001/2002 due to the Wakefield nonsense and there was certainly information available then. Iirc as parents I think we were even given the equivalent of patient info leaflets on the vaccines when we took the DC to be vaccinated which would have included side effects etc.

My mother had a similar issue when I was a baby (there was a scare regarding whooping cough vaccine), my mum went and spoke to dr who said there can be side effects, which were outlined, but it was explained to her that whooping cough itself was a more likely problem. I was vaccinated. That was early 70's!

I'm fairly confident that in 2008, just 10 years ago if you'd googled eg "mmr side effects" you'd have found a wealth of accurate reliable information. Certainly not only results from anti vaccine sites.

Do you think people really choose risks on the basis of whether or not they would get compensation?? That wouldn't sway me in the slightest. Like most people I choose risks based on which one scares me the least. Emotional, perhaps, but human.