Rise of measles

[crosstalk]

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

Just saying

Yes! Arthuritis has nailed it!

You’re the drunk driver...

It’s weird that in a vaccine scenario it’s deemed acceptable and something you feel able to defend???

Why would they be? Very few rubella cases so not that likely they'll be exposed to it. Would the NHS even bother to check?

@NailsNeedDoing

I don't know if you have children, but assuming you do - they weren't immune to diptheria, whooping cough or polio until they had their first vaccinations at 2,3 and 4 months or mmr at a year or so. They (and you) relied on the fact that the rest of us were vaccinated to stop them from contracting those diseases.

That is why we vaccinate. To reduce the risks for everyone. Everyone takes advantage of those benefits but it relies on everyone playing their part.

Driving drunk could hurt you and someone else.

Not having a vaccination that doesn’t benefit you does you no good and could harm you.

If others wish to immunise themselves, they can.

It’s nothing like driving drunk.

I really genuinely cannot understand how anyone can justify babies taking a small, but still, a risk, for adult women.

Mairy, DD1 has had rubella. It was very mild indeed. Barely knew she had it.

“Vaccinating tiny babies for the benefit of others”
I could weep at the utter stupidity.
Measles can kill
We have a vaccine
Use it!
Otherwise keep your kids away from everyone else’s kids please

it's all of a sudden selfish not to inject your baby with something that they don't need.

Except the vaccine stops them from contracting a disease that comes with potentially fatal complications.

disclosingshite, why do you think your estimation of the likelihood of vaccine damage (the "risk" that you would expose your dds to for no "benefit") is so much higher than the likelihood of rare severe reactions to mumps & rubella (the "risk" that you aren't worried about exposing your dds to because you feel it isn't likely to happen to you)?

You clearly have calculated that the first risk is much more likely than the second. Is this based on data, or is it just a gut feeling?

The drunk driving analogy is the best I’ve seen on the subject. And of course not vacinating harms others, that’s the point @disclosingshite. There are lots of people who can’t have vaccines because of medical factors such as allergies.

I really genuinely cannot understand how anyone can justify babies taking a small, but still, a risk, for adult women.

They're not taking the risk of a vaccine solely for adult women, they are also taking it for themselves because complications of rubella can kill. Encephalitis kills. Your DD got rubella mildly, good for her, but you had no way of knowing that before she caught it. She could quite easily have been one of the children landed in ICU with complications that could have been prevented had she been vaccinated.

Sleepy, measles is dangerous. The small risk from the vaccine is worth it to be immunised from the disease.

This is not the case for mumps or rubella.

@disclosingshite

For some people (babies, immunocompromised etc) their IS nothing that they can do to protect themselves against your unvaccinated children. It is, in this scenario, exactly the same as a drunk driver. You say that a drunk driver could injure or kill themselves or others. So could an unvaccinated child. They could catch mumps or measles and die from encaphalitis and pass it on to someone else who could suffer a serious complication.

If you refuse to vaccinate then you should, at the very least, inform everyone that your children come into contact with so that those innocent people can take steps to protect themselves.

Risks of mumps were already discussed upthread, full list is on page three, but I'll say the most common complication again simply because it bears saying.

Mumps carried a 1 in 7 risk of meningitis

1

in

7

My responsibility is to my own babies arthur

I’m surprised that surprises you.

It’s also so hard to understand why a parent would put their children at risk of mumps. It’s truly shite. I had it as a child too and remember how awful it was. I wouldn’t want that for my kids... I can’t understand why anyone would? Regardless of if it leads to long term issue or not. It’s a horrid illness to get...

But that's simply not true, disclosingshite. Rare, but severe complications can arise from both mumps and rubella. You'd have to be really, really unlucky but it happens.

Equally, severe complications from vaccination - the life-changing complications that you feel aren't worth the risk of exposing your dds to in the case of MMR - are very rare. You'd have to be really, really unlucky to get them.

My feeling is that the second risk is much less likely to happen than the first (of course the odds are that neither would happen most of the time). You have calculated differently.

I'm just interested in why you've made that calculation? I have a mumps-damaged member of my family (older generation) and suffered very severely from mumps myself, taking weeks to recover (pre-MMR) so mumps damage feels quite real to me. I probably overestimate it because of my personal experience. Do you know someone who is vaccine-damaged? Is that why you calculate the risk as you do?

There are very few cases of rubella because of vaccination, if boys are not vaccinated then Rubella will be back. I know very few people my age, who were children pre-vaccination, who haven’t had Rubella. If boys are unvaccinated then I would guess most of them will g

disclosingshite can you actually hear yourself?

Picking up on the car safety analogy, we all know that wearing seatbelts saves lives. However, there would be a very statistically small, very specific set of circumstances in a car accident in which wearing a seatbelt will actually be more dangerous than not wearing one. Are you going to stop wearing a seatbelt because of this?

I have no time for anti-vaxxers (medical exceptions notwithstanding. Religious exceptions however also piss me off).

Imo if you don't want to contribute to herd immunity - which benefits us all - then you should forfeit the benefit of the herd. I personally believe that when you enroll your child into anything that means they are in close contact with other children, you should have to prove they are up to date with their jabs. If not, your child doesn't get to join the nursery/pre-school/school/club. Perhaps when children are missing out because of their parents' selfishness they'll buck up.

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.

And if we all felt like that we'd still be dying of smallpox.

This thread makes me think there is a strong correlation of selfish with stupid.

Pressed send too early. Unvaccinated boys will mostly catch Rubella, along with female babies too young to be vaccinated. Women who can’t have the vaccination and those for whom the vaccination has not given good immunity will be at risk during pregnancy because Rubella will be around. The reason vaccination is so successful is that herd immunity stops diseases spreading so that those for whom individual vaccination is impossible or ineffective are not exposed as much. It is not rocket science.

Totally agree pissed off.

Why do selfish members of society in this specific area get no comeuppance.

when you enroll your child into anything that means they are in close contact with other children, you should have to prove they are up to date with their jabs.

This is how it works where I live. I produce a vaccination cert from our GP every year for each of my children so they can go to daycare/school/summer camps.

It more than surprises me.

I'm assuming then that you are completely comfortable with the rest of society exhibiting the same selfish attitude towards you and your children ie I will only do something if I directly benefit from it. I don't want to do anything that might help or protect anyone else.

Presumably you would refuse blood transfusions on behalf of your children should they need it because that meant that someone else made a selfless act for the benefit of others.

You haven't responded to the need for you to inform anyone at risk from your children. I presume you will tell everyone - teachers, children at a playground, people in the supermarket.... that your children are a potential risk to them?

It’s cheeky fucking fuckery is what it is.