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 ?

Herd immunity means THE HERD. Which includes anyone you meet on the street. Don't you know that?

Measles kills people like me.

Herd immunity means THE HERD. Which includes anyone you meet on the street. Don't you know that?

I know what it means.

Antivaxxers destroy herd immunity. Again, don't you understand that?

Again, don't you understand that?

What makes you think I don’t understand?

It's actually to @Isadora2007 . You clearly understand but think avoiding one human inconvenience is more important than avoiding the death of another human being.

You clearly understand but think avoiding one human inconvenience is more important than avoiding the death of another human being.

Then you don’t understand.

We’re on to a loser trying to persuade people on the grounds of herd immunity tbh. Very few people who perceive a greater health risk from vaccines than vaccines actually present are going to be swayed by herd immunity and the good of others. In their minds they could be facing a seriously ill child with a disability. They are not interested in hearing about the effects on othe people as that risk is too large in their minds.

It’s true that most people can’t read and interpret reams of research but there are very few people who couldn’t understand a 1 in 300 risk v a 1 in 300,000 risk. The challenge is in getting that risk out there and widely understood against a backdrop of dismissive attitudes in the health service and being called thick, loony cult followers.

And the notion that disabled children are somehow less is the even nastier undercurrent.

ErrolTheDragon

Younger babies will have some maternal antibody protection, but they can't be vacc'd till its declined.

So the scenario you depict is quite inaccurate.

How so? What difference does it make weather young babies can or can't be vaccinated? If they have natural immunity then you have nothing to fear from unvaccinated kids, and if they don't have natural immunity they are no less likely to have and/or to spread measles than a slightly older toddler in the same room.

Do you have this same level of fear to chickenpox? Scarlet fever? TB? Leprosy? Or is it only measles?

My children have some but not all vaccinations as I don’t believe the risk outweighs the benefits.

Is this because you aren't aware of the statistics, or because you believe the statistics are incorrect?

*whether not weather

Oh yes, bellinisurge that too. There is a whole social backdrop to our fear of disability.

Even that isn't correct, given cases like Re E (A minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1993]

That is the State going to court to remove the right a parent has, not the parent not having the right to begin with, yes?

For the purposes of this discussion, it's an example of the state making medical choices for children even in the absence of abuse or neglect.

Saucery
Risk is quoted at a population level. You forget that people have individual risk factors...eg people who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons have too great a risk, or risk that the vaccine won't work anyway. Some people have an immunocompromised family member and are advised not to vaccinate close family due to risk of shedding the virus to the immunocompromised family member.
Some people have had an allergic or tixic reaction to a vaccine so their risk of reacting to further vaccines are higher.
Some peopkw have a sibling who has had a life changing reaction to a vaccine so they deem the risk of vaccinating another family member to be too great.

The population risks don't apply to individual people. Every person has a different risk of catching a disease, survivong a disease, reacting to a vaccibe or not reacting to a vaccine. You can't just quote avereage population risk and expect everyone to just accept that as the risk for their own child. Child have all sorts of risk factors that need to be weighed up at an induvidual level. Not doing so would be very irresponsible.

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.

The trouble with deciding what to put into your children's bodies is that you can't decide what bacteria will or will not enter their bodies. What you can decide is whether to take action to prevent that bacteria from harming them.

Biff - I reckon the NHS link I gave upthread explained pretty well why the vaccination schedule has to be what it is, and therefore why your previous post was inaccurate.

A very young baby will hopefully still have good maternal cover. But there's a point where this will have declined, but not yet far enough that the vaccine can be administered.

I don't personally have a huge level of fear about diseases - I take the view that those with potentially serious outcomes which can easily be avoided should be avoided. With chickenpox, there's a trade-off with shingles in older people, I don't know if the US or the U.K. is making the better judgement on that at the moment. As to scarlet fever and TB, their resurgence will probably necessitate changes in public health policy. I had the BCG vacc as a teen, it was standard back then.

You can't just quote avereage population risk and expect everyone to just accept that as the risk for their own child. Child have all sorts of risk factors that need to be weighed up at an induvidual level. Not doing so would be very irresponsible.

Absolutely. The main problem is that, largely because of the success of the vaccination program, there's a tendency for many parents to underestimate the risk of contracting the disease and of serious consequences, versus the risks associated with vaccination. The balance is different if there are known factors contraindicating vaccination - the majority of kids have none.

ErrolTheDragon

No, I understand why the schedule is the way it is, but it doesn't say it's due to adequate levels of protection (which I think may be higher if mother has naturally acquired immunity). It says that maternal antibodies stop the vaccine from working...and presumably young babies these days don't have adequate kevels of protection or otherwise there woukdn't be this fear of young babies catching measles due to being unvaccinated, would there?
So my point remains that your unvaccinated child, up to the point where he/she is vaccinated, is likely to be no more or less a measles catcher/spreader than any other child in the nursery room who is unvaccinated.

These people are talking about taking away free choice in matters of healthcare. That is unacceptable to me.

On that basis, parents should have the free choice not to seek medical treatment for their children for easily treatable illnesses even if that risks severe disability or death for the child. As a society, we do not accept that, and such parents are likely to end up with their decisions being overridden by the courts and, potentially, their children being taken into care.

I don't believe this is anything to do with thinking that disabled people are 'less'.
But no parent with a non disabled child is going to be blasé about it if their child does react negatively to a vaccine, resulting in disability - parents want their children to have easy lives with no disadvantages. Disability makes life hard.

There is a huge difference between denying a sick child medicine which will make them well and choosing not to inject a healthy child with a vaccine they may or may not benefit from.

But it's not a 50/50 may or may not.

ErrolTheDragon

The balance is different if there are known factors contraindicating vaccination - the majority of kids have none.

Yes, and the majority ARE vaccinated!

Biff - the original point was, your claim that the other poster's unvaccinated infant would be banned from nursery along with those who were unvacced due to parental choice is invalid. Before the age that infants can be vaccinated, they're clearly in exactly the same category as those who can't be vaccinated for good medical reasons. And the younger ones are less likely to be catchers/spreaders.