Rise of measles

[crosstalk]

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

Just saying

@gilead the research was about the MMR injection itself, regarding the link to autism they were just conversations with the family members. Their viewpoints and own personal feelings on vaccinations and Wakefield. My mum met Wakefield years ago when my brother was younger. There was a group of parents I believe with Wakefield who were looking at suing the NHS for their children’s autism. I was only 11 at the time though so can’t remember the exact details but I know that her viewpoint coloured my life and terrified me.

My son can't be vaccinated because of his health, it also means if he catches it HE WILL DIE, I loathe anti-vax parents, it's not just your own kids you're putting at risk it's other peoples too!

I had my DD vaccinated, my research was because my mum linked the MMR to my brothers autism and she terrified me that it would happen to my own children. I also never claimed to be an expert on vaccines, yes I had help from family.

So you are saying "my mum told me not to vaccinate - but I actually listened to medical professionals and had my child vaccinated"?

Why did you trust the family medical professionals but not 'the establishment'?

@serbska because I was 11 when my little brother was born, and spent the rest of my childhood and teenage years being told how the MMR caused my brothers problems. If you can’t understand how that can get into someone’s head and stay there even with the knowledge that it has been debunked then there are no words I can use to explain it.

It wasn’t that I was untrusting if the ‘establishment’ it was that I needed to assuage my anxiety regarding this. My daughter is the most precious thing to me, and as un-pc as this is, I didn’t want her to have a life like my little brothers. I needed to be sure.

I’m deaf in one ear as I caught measles before I got the MMR vaccine was rolled out when I was 3 , I also work on the medical field and we’ve seen quite a lot of critically ill people with measles .

@disclosingshite

Those things don’t carry a risk, albeit a small risk.

Do you let your children ride in a car or cross the road?

Those things are, comparatively, very dangerous. Thousands are killed or injured every year in RTCs yet most of us hop into the car every day without giving it a second thought.

No medications are 100% without risk for 100% of the people that take it. Nothing. Every medicine, even over the counter medicines, carry risks of side effects, some serious, or allergic reactions. The key is balancing the risk vs benefit.

Yup I can see how that must have been pretty devastating.

But you don't accept that for a lay-man to 'do their own research' is illogical?

Those things benefit them, Arthuritis

A vaccination such as rubella doesn’t.

disclosingshite

But won't they have it later anyway?

Have what later?

Risk of dying in a car accident, even with seatbelts, 1 in 200.

Risk of meningitis due to catching mumps, 1 in 7.

Yes. I can totally see why you allow seatbelts but not the mumps vaccine

Well, we will keep going around in circles however (again) - car journeys benefit their lives and mine, they allow us an easy life, to experience things we could not otherwise experience, etc.

There is little benefit to them having a vaccination that does not benefit them.

This is madness! Vaccinating is part of being a member of society. It’s healthy able people protecting themselves so that people who can’t, won’t die as a result of selfish behaviour.

It’s pure selfishness not to vaccinate. Absolutely.

Disclosure, the benefit of vaccinating your children is for other people. You really sound horribly selfish. I hope it doesn’t bite you on the arse one day.

Of course I am selfish when it comes to my own children. I make decisions that benefit them. Why, is that surprising to you?

June (Interesting names for our conversation)!
Yes, Wakefield was denounced by the court for gathering together those parents, it was part of the plan sponsored by the drug company for whom he was advocating at the time.

@disclosingshite
Seems to me that you are being very selective about your adversity to risk.

If course the vaccinations will benefit them. As PPs have said both mumps and rubella carry the risk of serious complications, without allowing for the risk unvaccinated children pose to others.

To continue the car analogy, I presume you have no issue with drunk drivers because although they pise a risk to other road users presumably it is up too the innocent drivers/pedestrians to keep themselves safe isn't it? It can't be the fault of the drunk driver if he kills someone because everyone should have kept out of his way.

What will you do if the single measles vaccine isn't available and this epidemic continues?

It isn’t the same comparison at all arthuritis which I don’t think really needs pointing out. There’s no way of making yourself safe from a drunk driver. Furthermore, there are no tangible risks to anybody from somebody choosing to drive sober rather than drunk: there are risks (small risks, I a, happy to concede, but risks nonetheless) to any vaccine.

Therefore the only vaccinations my children will have are vaccinations they will benefit from.

Have what? The rubella vaccine...they will have it later in life when they reach child bearing age, so why is it better then than now?

It’s surprising because it lacks empathy. You can’t imagine a time where your children might be the children I’m talking about. Kids that become ill and a “low risk” illness could kill them. And then you rely on parents like me, who wouldn’t wish that on anyone. Direct benefit or not.

It’s empathy you’re lacking. Possibly imagination too. How you can’t feel for other parents who are worrying about their child dying because people like you can’t see a benefit.

I’m actually really surprised.

Those things don’t carry a risk, albeit a small risk.

Yes they do.

Everything has a risk, drinking water can kill you. I don't mean dirty infected water I mean clean filtered water. It's rare but it does happen.

Mairy, only assuming they aren’t already immune. They may well be.

I think you have misquoted me sashh

Of course it is the same.

For many people there is no way for making themselves safe against unvaccinated children. Those that are too young or ill can't be vaccinated. That is the point.

Your children are potentially the drunk driver. Unless you are prepared to disclose their status to everyone that they come into contact with those people have no way of keeping themselves safe.

When your children were babies you relied on the fact that those around you were vaccinated in order to keep your babies safe. You should do the same.

I realise Im in the minority with this opinion, but we really shouldn't be expecting mothers of tiny children to vaccinate their children for the benefit of others if they don't want to. It's not selfish, it's normal.

I find it bizarre that in any other area of life it is expected that we have rights over our own bodies that's no one else has the right to even begin to question, yet when it's vaccination, which comes with a risk, it's all of a sudden selfish not to inject your baby with something that they don't need.

I agree that we shouldn't be vaccinating baby boys with rubella, they don't need it. It's often worn off in women of childbearing age anyway, so it's them that should be given that vaccine, not tiny children.

Arthur if isn’t even close to being the same

If you get into a car drunk, you are not in control of your actions and could easily kill yourself or someone else. If there was a pill one could take to protect yourselves from drunk drivers you might have a point, otherwise it doesn’t work as an analogy.

If you choose not to have a vaccination for a disease that is harmless to you, you are making what is a sensible decision.