Rise of measles

[crosstalk]

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/european-measles-death-toll-hits-37-after-antivax-campaigns-ztmwl9f3q

Just saying

Around 1 in 7 children - male and female - who contract mumps will develop viral meningitis.

1 in 20 develop pancreatitis.

1 in 20 experience temporary hearing loss, for some this will develop into permanent hearing loss.

1 in 20 females who contract mumps will have swelling of the ovaries, it's as painful as it sounds.

1 in 1000 develop encephalitis, a life threatening complication.

They don’t need mumps because they are girls.
Mumps is horrible - I'm female and slightly older than MMR so didn't have it as a toddler. I have a clear memory of having mumps, having a swollen neck and it hurting, I must have been 3 or 4 at the time.
Why would you want your child have a preventable disease?

My ds has a compromised immune system right now and is off school (scotland) because it’s just now worth him catching an infection. He was so ill recently the thought he could be ill again really scares me. He doesn’t need to be kept inside, but how on Earth do I manage the risk when I don’t know who has been vaccinated and who hasn’t?

disclosingshite

A good friend of mine had mumps as a toddler and is deaf in one ear as a result- so might be worth considering whether it is better for them to have that vaccine notwithstanding.

Are girls immune from the complications of mumps then?

I remember having mumps over 50 years ago, it was horrible. I’ve had students both male and female come down with mumps and they have been very poorly. I would not wish mumps on anyone.

I know arran and I will never change my stance from the simple fact it is adult women who need immunising, not babies.

I find it mind-boggling tbh. If I had a heavy cold and sneezed right in a babies face I'd be lucky not to be picking my teeth up off the floor, yet some people are so blase about measles, mumps and so on.

chemenger - I remember having mumps over 50 years ago

Yeah, mumps were pretty shitty too.

disclosingshite

But what's the point, if they'll just have it when they're older and the measles vaccine has the same side effects as MMR?

Thanks Hazel that helps me stop worrying.

As I said earlier. I do really think that the rise of antivaxxing is correlated to that fact that a lot of people have never seen children suffering from these diseases.

My dad is in his 80s and sometimes talks about all the children in his class who died of fevers and illnesses. It was an accepted part of life back then- if a tragic one. The whole point of the vaccination programme was to take the chance element out of surviving childhood.

My brother is deaf in one ear due to mumps as a teenager

The point is not to give them vaccinations they do not need.

Children can develop complications from contracting rubella. These include arthritis, particularly of the fingers, and that old favourite - encephalitis. Encephalitis is a medical emergency requiring treatment in ICU and has a mortality rate of approximately 30%.

I'm sure mumps can make girls deaf as well as boys

@lljkk

When I was being induced there was a woman from eastern Europe there as well, I overheard her talking about healthcare in her home country to the midwife. Shocking, absolutely shocking, like doctors sending patients home without stitches when they clearly wouldn't heal properly or might get an infection because the patient didn't have the extra money upfront for the stitches.

Rubella is a very mild disease. It’s only dangerous for developing foetus’

Likewise, the potential complications arising from mumps are rare.

@disclosing

So why do they need measles and not mumps or rubella at this stage?

Disclosing shite Do you really think the NHS is going to waste their limited resources giving children vaccinations they don’t need? There are very clear benefits for children being vaccinated against these diseases at the time it is recommended on the schedule.

Rubella is most dangerous to the developing foetus but that doesn't mean it carries no risk of complications to children, teens, or adults who catch it.

But they will have it at some point by your own admission, so obviously they do need it. What is the benefit in delaying it?

All great civilizations / empires rise and then collapse.

Perhaps we are in our end-game?

Maya
Indus
Anasazi
Easter Island
Vikings
Rome
Ottoman Empire

Maybe the 'west' is heading for our downfall at the hands of disease and economic collapse?

Rubella is a very mild disease. It’s only dangerous for developing foetus

So you aren't bothered about the harm you could cause to someone else's foetus? And I say you, because this is the choice you are making.

Its only fair that you make it clear your kids could pass on these diseases so others can choose if they wanted it to risk contracting them.

Disclosingshite vaccines are also there to protect the rest of the population from your children.

If your DD has early stages of mumps and infects a young man/boy (while standing next to them in a supermarket for example) who is immunosuppressed due to cancer therapy or similar, your stance is responsible for his sterility!

If your DD has rubella she can expose a newly pregnant woman, who may also be immunosuppressed due to her organ transplant, to the virus and she is then responsible for a severely disabled baby.

It's not just about exposing your kids to an imaginary risk, it's the risk posed to others through no fault of their own who are not immune through other illnesses!!

I always have a laugh when people tell me they are going to 'do their own research' into vaccinations.

If you were in anyway capable of finding relevant research and assessing it properly, you wouldn't be working in retail / office admin / whatever non medical/non science field with zero access to reputable peer reviewed journals.