Why are some parents/families anti vax?

[Sistersis]

Just read an article about the UK no longer being measles free. Just trying to understand what are the reasons that some people are against vaccination.

Not being cheeky here, geniuenly interested. Sorry if this has been done already.

I’m not changing my mind on this, regardless of how far fetched the scenarios get.

Imagining that your children will be immune by the time they're 12 is the far fetched scenario.
Imagining that 10 years will make a big difference to their immune systems is far fetched. Teenagers can get childhood diseases and react similarly. In fact, I got chicken pox as a teenager. Most people don't simply because they've had the diseases as a child, not because their immune systems are that weak.

septemberdread Yes I do. I think herd immunity is very important, even if that immunity is to protect pregnant women and babies rather than myself in that exact moment.

I think we all owe each other a social responsibility. So I adhere to the 48 hour d&v rule for work and school (and for 2 weeks for swimming), I cancelled a holiday weekend when one of my children got chicken pox and once I had proper education on the subject I vaccinated my children.

Bigger, there’s nothing wrong with my brain thanks. I am not giving children a vaccination that is of no benefit to them. I don’t know, tbh, how many times I can say the same thing - and then when you don’t like what you’re hearing you resort to personal insults.

Rubella aa a disease will not harm them, so if they get it, great - immunity.

‘But what if they infect a pregnant woman’ - well then that’s awful and that is really sad. But said pregnant woman needs to take responsibility for her own healthcare and that of her unborn child. Asking my babies to take a risk for an adult woman is not on. And it won’t happen on my watch.

Rubella AS a disease.

I doubt the AA would be much help should you come into contact with it!

I think the vaccine is given to all children because of cost. It is cheaper from the governments point of view to vaccinate all.

Cheaper than what?

The rubella vaccine is given twice during childhood in the UK.
Don't you think it would be cheaper to only give at 12, say, and only to boys?

Ups, only to girls! Meant not to boys.

I did wonder!

Far more sensible to check immunity in the teenage years and offer the vaccine to those not immune.

That way no unnecessary vaccinations.

‘But what if they infect a pregnant woman’ - well then that’s awful and that is really sad. But said pregnant woman needs to take responsibility for her own healthcare and that of her unborn child. Asking my babies to take a risk for an adult woman is not on. And it won’t happen on my watch.

That's not how it works. The vaccine is as much for the child itself as an adult (when they want to have children) or their partners. Some people can't get vaccinated or don't develop immunity no matter how much responsibility they take over their own health. You can't guess if your children will be in that category.

If having no rubella vaccine was a good option, or only vaccinating during puberty was a good option, no government would want to spend the extra money on it.

And what exactly do you think your child is at risk of, and what is the risk, when having the rubella vaccine? What's your evidence for either?

Far more sensible to check immunity in the teenage years and offer the vaccine to those not immune. That way no unnecessary vaccinations.

See my most recent post.

Yes Lweji

But in the unlikely event that my girls can’t get immunity this would be true at 12 months as well as 14 years wouldn’t it?

And vaccine damage happens - you know this. I accept it is rare. I still know it occurs and therefore will not take the risk unless there is a benefit to my child.

Asking my babies to take a risk for an adult woman is not on.

What if that pregnant woman had a mother like you @septemberdread and doesn't realise she isn't vaccinated? What if she has an autoimmune disease that means she can't be vaccinated? Herd immunity is there to protect the weak among us who cannot be vaccinated, to keep them safe. You're clearly not bothered by anyone else's safety but your own. You're not bothered by your DC's, that's for sure. As long as you're sitting up there on your high horse, puffed up with self-righteous (and wholly wrong) indignation, then all is rosy in your little garden. You're a good example actually of the idiotic thinking that has led to the situation where 90,000 DC will be starting school next month without being vaccinated. If my DC was one of those few who cannot be vaccinated I'd be fucking terrified

Do you know that contracting rubella carries a risk of complications including meningitis, encephalitis, and deafness?

So again we come to the scenario that adult woman doesn’t take responsibility for her healthcare so my kids have to do it?

Nope, sorry. The ‘mother like you’ doesn’t wash given one way or the other my daughters will be immune to rubella by the time they are of child bearing age, as I’ve repeatedly said.

But they may not be immune by the time they reach childbearing age as they may be one of the people who cannot assimilate the vaccine despite receiving it, in which case they'd be relying on herd immunity in order to avoid contracting it.

Fear, ignorance and the appallingly inadequate way in which science is taught in the UK. Most people, including most journalists, are completely incapable of evaluating and understanding data and evidence at even a basic level.

I guess you’ll just have to hope that your child is never the one who needs the herd immunity for protection because they can’t have the vaccines when they need it

Yes, agreed @Jsmith99. Like I said, it's ignorance. @septemberdread is a perfect example of it.

The children of anti vaxx won't thank them when they're older, the parents like to paint a picture of "My childs safety Is all I care about" but it's the opposite, Its selfish to not try and give your DC the best shot at immunity against these diseases.

Its funny really, the reason people are so confident in pissing about with their childs safety is because "the disease is rare" well, why the hell do you think that is? I couldn't imagine the parents all that time ago, debating this shit.

I can’t keep going round in circles.

If they can’t get immunity from the vaccine or from the disease (unlikely) then that holds true whether they are 12 months, 12 years or 36 years.

If they can’t get immunity from the vaccine or from the disease (unlikely) then that holds true whether they are 12 months, 12 years or 36 years.

And then being reliant on herd immunity would hold true, funnily enough its that herd immunity which is currently stopping them from contracting rubella. Funny how it is acceptable to you that other people's babies are having vaccines in order to keep yours safe but you don't have the social morals to actually vaccinate your children.

We should do this in the UK: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47536981

And my stance is the same.

I think that women should be vaccinated against rubella if they haven’t already had it by that point.

Women. Not babies. Not baby boys. Not even baby girls. Women who are of child bearing age.

I cannot and will not be vaccinated against everything going because of adverse reactions in others and nor
Would I ask them to do so for me.

But what if it's your children who can't get vaccinated? Tough luck?

You might catch more flies with honey but you catch less life threatening diseases with immunisations.

Anti vaxxers are selfish stupid fucking pricks.

The end.

And vaccine damage happens - you know this. I accept it is rare. I still know it occurs and therefore will not take the risk unless there is a benefit to my child.

Do you accept it's a lower risk than the risk of damage from contracting the disease? Why do you still prefer them to contract it?
And are the risks comparable? Do you have numbers and data to back up your decision?

Are you aware of the risks of taking blood for serological tests?