UK lost measles free status

[Stressedout10]

So due to all the anti Vaxers the WHO have stripped us of our measles free status.
What next ?

Potential harm isn’t harm. There is a small risk of harm. The State wouldn’t remove the parent’s right to assess that risk for themselves, or force the parents to give their child particular medical interventions. It would be profoundly unethical, because the child does need treatment until they are sick.

Potential harm turns into real harm in some cases. That's the issue. You can't know which kids will be absolutely fine despite their parents refusing to vaccinate, and which ones will end up dead. That's why I believe they should all be protected - I don't think it's fair to play Russian roulette with a child's life just to pander to the ignorance and selfishness of their parents.

I've said repeatedly that refusing to vaccinate doesn't need to be made illegal (although I would have no qualms with it being law that children had to be vaccinated, I'm working with your scruples here). It should just be made expensive, inconvenient and embarrassing enough that it dissuades the vast majority from making that decision.

Anyway, I think I am going to leave things there. MN is often like this: people arguing until their teeth bleed that other people don’t have rights that they actually do have, because it happens to suit them to pretend otherwise.

Surely we are discussing what rights people should and shouldn't have, not what they do or don't have?

But if you've had enough, I get it. The beauty of MN is you can walk away when it gets too much. I've done it myself many a time often after spending too long hanging my head on the antivax brick wall.

Just to clear that risk of significant harm is sufficient for the state to go to court to request alternative care or actions for dc.
This is current childcare law, there doesn't have to have been significant harm.

‘You can't know which kids will be absolutely fine despite their parents refusing to vaccinate, and which ones will end up dead.’

Yes! Exactly this. I don’t know how the anti-vaxxers fail to grasp this very basic concept.

There was never any valid reason for concern. There was no scientific evidence to support a link between the MMR vaccine and autism Single vaccines on the other hand were very under tested and the NHS was correct in discouraging people to have them Who puts their children through 9 vaccines instead of 3 anyway?

hercule no, I don’t believe it’s a chemical, or that it does any harm. You can link all the peer reviewed evidence you like, but I’ve read loads of anecdotes online about heavy smokers who lived to a hundred, and people who grew up when smoking indoors was the norm. And anecdotes about non smokers who are overweight or who struggle with stress. So you can’t convince me I’m misinformed. And you don’t get to tell me my opinion is imaginary or suggest I shouldn’t be entitled to bodily autonomy simply because it’s harming others

Meringue- I am in the UK. I was very worried after hearing lots of awful things but public health said to treat them like they had chicken pox in terms of rest and painkillers. I asked if they needed hearing tests etc and PH said that it wasn’t necessary and as long as dc were healthy they would be likely to make a full recovery as complications are rare.
I have no reason to lie lol, my kids were vaccinated after all.

@ErrolTheDragon - or if anyone else has experience, can 20 year olds just book in for 3rd MMR at gp's? Is this an accepted thing in most gp's surgeries? Thanks

I have always been pro vaccines and have up to now had both my children vaccinated. But last year there was in incident in regards to one of the pre school vaccines given to my son and now I'm not sure if I will give them any further ones.

My son was given a vaccination that was not fit for purpose (which the nurse should have identified at the time).

He had a bad reaction requiring medical treatment.
It later transpired the vaccination he was given was out of date by over 7months.

The GPS surgery in question identified the error a month before deciding to notifying us as they chose to seek legal advice first and recommended he have another dose.

On seeking out independent advice on how to proceed no one not even the vaccine manufacturer could advise and eventually public health phoned to state that another vaccination was not advised as it was likely he would have a more severe reaction similar to the one the out of date vaccination gave him. The GPS surgery then told me if I wanted to give him another vaccination due to that recommendation I would need to sign a waiver saying that I do so at my own risk and against their advice (despite them being the ones to originally advise me to give him another).

The doctors surgery cared more about protecting themselves legally and refused to show us a copy the incident enquiry as to how my son and another child ended up being administered an out of date vaccination.
I'm still not sure if he's vaccinated or not and the professionals are not either but the lack of openness and knowledge regarding the vaccines that the health professionals and the manufacturers showed has put me off giving him or my daughter any further ones incase something was to go wrong again.

As I parent I feel I should have the right to make that choice and don't feel I should be looked down upon because I have done so.

99.9% of people who get their children vaccinated, do it because they want to protect their own children, not other people's.

Contributing to herd immunity is very much a secondary benefit. You can't tell me that if a parent truly fears that a vaccine might damage their child, they're going to forge ahead, put their child second, and do it anyway, for the good of society. Really?

Vaccine damage is a real risk. Minimal, but real. It does happen. Similar to the real, but small risk of permanent damage from the diseases MMR protects against. Why should one parent be allowed to protect their child against what they perceive to be the most dangerous of two actual, proven risks, if another parent is not to be afforded that choice?

*99.9% of people who get their children vaccinated, do it because they want to protect their own children, not other people's.

Contributing to herd immunity is very much a secondary benefit. You can't tell me that if a parent truly fears that a vaccine might damage their child, they're going to forge ahead, put their child second, and do it anyway, for the good of society. Really?

Vaccine damage is a real risk. Minimal, but real. It does happen. Similar to the real, but small risk of permanent damage from the diseases MMR protects against. Why should one parent be allowed to protect their child against what they perceive to be the most dangerous of two actual, proven risks, if another parent is not to be afforded that choice?*

You're going to have post statistics for this argument to have any weight behind it.

Now I don't know the statistics but I'm going to bet that the nhs wouldn't vaccinate if 'vaccination damage' risks were equal to the risks of contracting measles mumps or rubella.

TrainspottingWelsh

Just one more, then. Your analogy is out. This isn’t telling people they are not allowed to do a thing that physically harms other people. This is telling them they have to do a physical thing in order to protect themselves, whether they want to or not, because of some invented notion that protecting others against their own judgement is their responsibility.

It would be more like the Government making you smoke, than preventing you from doing so, and more like you refusing to smoke, than insisting on doing so.

Your bodily autonomy extends to protecting yourself from coercive measures to put things into your body. If a doctor decided they were going to vaccinate me against my will, that would be assault. It is no different when the subject is my child and the coercion is coming from the State.

I have had my children vaccinated as I believe it was the right thing for them. However, I do remember in the 1970s my Mum delayed getting the whooping cough vaccine for my sister as their were reports of children suffering brain damage because of it.. She did get her vaccinated in the end, but shortly afterwards in our area a young baby had a very bad reaction to the vaccine and ended up brain damaged.

His parent went many times to the tribunal which was set up to deal with compensation for vaccine damaged children & through court but they were refused over and over again, mainly due to one false entry on his medical records which noted he was suffering from influenza at the time of the vaccination and that had caused the brain damage. He did not have flu though and his records were later 'lost'.

His family looked after him for years with no help from the state. It is tragic that the government will not help people in those circumstances. I think that it does not help the case for vaccination when you hear stories like that. The medical profession knows that vaccines can cause damage, but if it is in 1% of the children who get vaccinated in is deemed as an acceptable risk. Until it is your child that it happens to.

Like I say my children have been vaccinated, but I feel strongly that if a child does have a bad reaction to the vaccine the state should absolutely financially help the families to raise that child.

I know MMR is not the 1970s whooping cough vaccine BTW, but no vaccine is 100% risk free and I wonder if this is at the back of the minds of some of the anti vakkers who may be of an age where they remember these past scares.

Now I don't know the statistics but I'm going to bet that the nhs wouldn't vaccinate if 'vaccination damage' risks were equal to the risks of contracting measles mumps or rubella.

But that's not what I said. I said there is a minimal risk of damage caused by complications from contracting the diseases MMR protects against, just as there is a minimal risk of vaccine damage. Which risk a parent feels is greatest for their child is down to them.

‘but if it is in 1% of the children who get vaccinated in is deemed as an acceptable risk’

It’s 0.0001%, this is deemed an acceptable risk.

I imagine it's 0.0001%, partly because of the onerous burden of proof placed upon those who suspect vaccine damage in their children.

Jenni1R21, -if the parents take their children to be vaccinated because they believe they are doing the right thing, for their child and to create herd immunity for others, then they should be adequately compensated when things go wrong. It is awful that some children might be damaged and then their parents left to cope with a child, then an adult, who effectively will never grow up into an independent person . The strain on the families is immense and they should not have to fight the system as well as cope with their child's needs.

I do believe that vaccination is the best thing for children but I do not want to accept that vaccine-damaged children are some sort of 'collateral damage' for herd immunity.

hercule I disagree. You’re telling me I have to put my cigarette out before I enter the building, taking away my bodily autonomy and right to ignore medical professionals and my right to ignore proven fact.

Although you’re right we should drop it, not least because I feel like a loon trying to argue the right to smoke everywhere

Although you’re right we should drop it, not least because I feel like a loon trying to argue the right to smoke everywhere grin

Sure. It’s not the same, though.

Vaccine damage is a real risk. Minimal, but real. It does happen. Similar to the real, but small risk of permanent damage from the diseases MMR protects against.

Now let's try and be factual about this here.

1 in 5 people who get measles in the US require to be hospitalised.

1 out of 20 children who get measles will get pneumonia.

1 out of 1000 children who get measles will develop encephalitis, which can leave the child deaf or brain damaged.

Between 1 and 3 out of 1000 children who get measles will die from respiratory and / or neurological complications.

Let's just take that last statistic and let's interpret it as conservatively as we can and say 1 in 1000 children who get measles will die as a result of respiratory or neurological complications.

Now let's look at incidences of vaccine damage for the MMR vaccine. We're only looking at severe adverse events here, since we are comparing with measles deaths only.

Allergic reactions including anaphylaxis: 3.5 to 10 occurrences per million doses.

Seizures: some studies suggest a rate of 1 occurrence per 2,942 doses, or 1 per 3,000 doses.

Thrombocytophenia: 1 occurrence in every 30,000 to 40,000 occurrences.

Serious adverse reactions to vaccines are terrible. There is a vaccine damage compensation fund to recognise this. It's a terrible tragedy for those who suffer this fate.

But the risk of serious damage from measles is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of serious damage from vaccines. There is no comparable risk here. It is bad science to compare them. It is ignorant fear mongering to pretend that these are comparable risks, and that parents are entitled to give them equal weight. They are simply not the same.

It absolutely sickens me that some selfish morons are willing to risk the health of other people who aren’t able to be vaccinated just because they want to follow some trend, it’s almost laughable that they’d try to form an educated argument to support their view because there literally isn’t one

It absolutely sickens me that some selfish morons are willing to risk the health of other people who aren’t able to be vaccinated just because they want to follow some trend decide what they put into their bodies and their children’s bodies.

There: fixed it for you.

newsthump.com/2019/08/19/doctors-uncover-link-between-children-getting-measles-and-their-parents-being-morons/

I posted a link earlier to some stats. The risk of vaccine damage is less than one in a million.
The risk of children dying because of people not vaccinating is no longer a risk, it's pretty much a certainty now outbreaks of measles are becoming more common.
Measles is very very contagious, the chances are if you arent vaccinated and you are exposed to it, that you will catch it.
I believe the risk of death is 1 in 1,000 from measles if you have it, and the risk of long term issues such as deafness or blindness is 1 in 15.

So 1 in a million from vaccinating vs 1 in 15 of lifelong consequences if you dont vaccinate and are exposed to measles (you can still catch measles if you are vaccinated but I think about 80pc -90pc of measles cases are in unvaccinated people whereas only 10pc of the population are unvaccinated therefore you are clearly much much more likely to catch measles if you are unvaccinated and once caught it is more severe)

And of course the more people that think 'oooh I will rely on everyone else being vaccinated and take those odds because measles outbreaks are still rare', then the more likely they will be exposing their children and every other vulnerable person to an outbreak

Wolff I don't think it's true that many people in their 50s aren't vaccinated - I'm 55 and I don't know anyone my age (and older) who isn't. My late father can remember going to work early one morning in the 50s and parents and children were queuing three times round the block at the clinic to get their children vaccinated against polio on the first day it was available, presumably because they had seen the damage it did first hand.
I hate anti vaxxers. I don't think they should have a right to education, benefits, health care if they refuse to vaccinate without good medical reason. It's a form of child abuse in my opinion.