in thinking Measles can't be more dangerous now than it was 15 years ago ?

[Onajourney]

Hi

Wondering if there are any GP's out there that can tell me this ?

My eldest child is 15 and I still have his baby books and they say Measles is a mild disease and just to keep their temperature down etc, they liken it to chickenpox. I remember not being worried about it at all when he and his 11 year old brother were small.

Fast forward 14 years and we have a 1 year old who is at "huge risk from this killer disease" according our GP, but I can't understand how it can have changed so much.

Can anyone tell me, is Measles worse now than it was 15 years ago and if so why ?

Thanks

Millyr: it was this bit:

"If we were to start vaccinating against chicken pox the purpose would surely be not to stop children suffering from chicken pox, but to stop them becoming seriously ill from shingles in the future."

If universal vaccination increases the risk of shingles in future it defeats the point. Doesn't it? That's why I thought you must have missed that information.

I have to go to bed now.

Certianly it is true that we will have to "wait and see" what the effect of the low uptake is. Certianly there have been outbreaks around here in recent years.

I sincerely hope that everything will be OK, as per the antiMMR people. I really do.

No, I don't believe it. I'm saying single vaccine clinics are very busy, you're saying you know a nursery where 50% of children are not vaxed. I am saying we need studies to find out what the real stats are. Neither you or I actually know.

You seem to evade the simple solution of the NHS offering single jabs. If protecting children is the aim then this would obviously be the way to go if MMR uptake is still so low.

we don't know what the death rate would be if there was an outbreak like the one in Dublin but, I repeat, in EVERY population there are children and adults with underlying health conditions and malnutrition.

"Measles vaccination resulted in a 78% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2008 worldwide."

Measles deaths dropped 98pc in the UK before any vaccine was introduced. Clean water, improved nutrition, improved sanitation in less crowded living conditions.

Isnt, it would be good to have those studies, I really hope we get them. I really do. For example, if you've had measles you're less likely to develop asthma, which kills I think 1400 every year in the UK. It would be good to have an all round picture, not just disease notifications.

So what is the argument for the NHS NOT offering single jabs?

the argument is usually that it would put children at risk because they would have to wait longer between each jab. But if they had the measles jab first then the protection from measles would be optimum. and if REALLY in many parts of the country 50% of children are not vaccinated then surely it blows this argument out of the water? Surely if you want to protect children you have a moral obligation to provide singles on the NHS?

The other thing of course is the govt does not want to appear to be wrong or to backtrack. And so it refuses to provide single jabs on the NHS, and allows children's health to be put at risk.

The other arguement against singles is that there will be drop-off in the number of people who attend for the vaccinations - ie its a lot harder to get people to attend 3 appointmnets than to attend 1.

harpsichord, there have been more cases in the UK in recent years than in the Dublin outbreak.

But that argument doesn't really hold water tiger if 50% of children are not vaccinated at present in many parts of the country.

Bubleymummy, I am not advocating the vaccination of children against chickenpox. I am advocating the vaccination of adults against shingles.

BTTAT, if children received a vaccination against chickenpox, that would increase the risk of shingles to people in the population who have already had chicken pox. Although what seems to be happening in the US is that people are getting shingles younger as a result of the chickenpox vaccination programme, when they are more able to cope with it. But in the long term, if there was herd immunity to chicken pox, then shingles would be eradicated with it. What would have to be decided were the ethics of increasing shingles in the short term in order to potentially eradicate it in the population in the long term.

I cannot see another childhood vaccination programme being acceptable to a British population, and so we would never get herd immunity as parents would not agree to it. So the rather dubious ethical considerations become irrelevant.

Hi backtotalkaboutthis

Have you got references for the asthma association and the 98% drop and what time period it took place over?

thx in advance

Jean (and Dolly)

Pofaced

I agree that there may be some people who would access the singles, where they will not have the MMR. Some of them will have the full course and some will default from it.

Also there will be some people who under the current system would accept the MMR, who might opt for singles if available on NHS and then not get full course.

I dont know how what proportion of people would be in each group, but unless you do I dont think it is reasonable to dismiss the idea that singles might lead to less completed vaccination.

Going back to the how dangerous is measles issue, my mother and aunt, who were kids in the 50s, regarded it as a disease that required careful nursing. Keeping an infected person in low light, making sure they are comfortable and quiet, attention to temperature and so on. I think attitudes back then were that it was usually unpleasant but sometimes serious.

The problem with the asthma and measles correlation would seem to be that asthma is much more common in younger people and having had measles is much more common in older people, and there are many differences between how people have been brought up in the last twenty or even thirty years and people brought up in previous generations. So it is a big leap to associate it with measles when asthma could be to do with many other generational differences.

As very few young people have had measles, it is hard to see how a study of people with and without asthma within one recent age group could be carried out in a way that linked it to not having measles.

Having just googled it, there is a 2008 paper that shows that children who have had the MMR are less likely to be hospitalised with asthma that those who are not.

But I wonder how much that has to do with reasons why families choose not to vaccinate, and not to do with anything in the vaccine itself.

yes, and a child died from measles a few years ago.
It does happen, and it is not scaremongering to say so.

Yes, that would be one of the two deaths in the last 17 years that I mentioned in one of my previous posts... Are you reading any of them?

I am sorry, I have no idea why you are being so unpleasant and aggressive towards me. I shall try and remain polite despite your rude
When there are measles outbreaks, then deaths do happen among those with underlying health problems as happened in recent years.
The numbers are probably too small, as I said, to form any reasonable conclusion. If outbreaks occur then those with particular health problems are most vulnerable so their deaths, far from skewing the results, are actually very significant imo

big stripeytiger at present parents have to visit the doctor four times inthe first year of their child's life for vaccinations and then several times aafter that. If at present the uptake is so low for MMR I still can't see why ethically the NHS should not offer singles. I think it is more about the govt not wanting to backtrack than anything else.

Sorry if I'm coming across as rude harpsichord. It's late, I'm tired and I feel like I've repeated myself a lot on this thread!

I'm not really sure what point you're making. Yes, vulnerable people are more at risk of measles, just as they are more at risk of any other disease - even ones which most people would consider mild. It doesn't make it any less tragic that they died but I don't think it makes measles look any more dangerous than any other illness that would have put them at risk due to their pre-existing condition. E.g would there be as much hype if an immunocompromised person died from bronchitis? No. We probably wouldn't hear about it. Is their death any less important? Of course not, but it won't get the same amount of attention.

Anyway, off to bed! Good night all...

here you go

Actually the report I saw talked about asthma and vaccination in Africa. It was a WHO report about the increase of asthma with the increase in vaccination/drop in measles/however you like to read it. I'll try to find links.

Millyr, firstly you cannot assume that if you have varicella vaccine you will not get shingles. This is NOT true although officially the risk is less than with CP. So you will NOT wipe out shingles even if you have universal uptake of a 100pc CP successful vaccine programe. Secondly CP vaccine is only 85pc effective. So universal uptake will make little difference anyway. Your thesis is faulty.

you have to read quite a way into this: investigating the increasing prevalence of atopy

This is NOT the study itself, but it references the study and its findings.

Children die after vaccination too. The response is too often denial. It isn't scare-mongering to say so.