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

VIRAL meningitis is much milder than bacterial meningitis and us usually treated with rest and painkillers. Hospitalisation is usually precautionary because the early symptoms are similar to bacterial.

Also, just because mumps was the 'leading cause' doesn't mean there were lots of cases.

What Pofaced said. DD is vaccinated against measles with Rouvax, a perfectly reputable vaccine made in France.

bubbley - Paediatrician saw DS and said Rubella was possible and asked if the following sounded familiar:

• mild fever 1-2 days before the rash (37.5 C or so)
• redness behind the ears 1-2 days before the rash
• redness/rash starting on his forehead
• spreading to entire body within a day
• rash gone within 1-2 days

All of that happened with DS, in that order, so I'm fairly sure that it was Rubella.

Sounds like my boys too! With DS2 we didn't even know he had a temperature and then he had this rash appear all over him. He wasn't in any way unhappy at all. I also read that they can have enlarged lymph nodes at the back if their head which they both had.

Funnily, both boys had it when they were under a year old. I wonder how many children are already immune to it before their mmr ....

No not nonsense Musukebba.

Before the introduction of the MMR the mumps single vaccine was very little used because mumps was not considered to be a disease serious enough to warrant vaccination (and the vaccine was not terribly effective).

Before 1988 mumps was not even a notifiable disease. Mumps is sub-clinical in around 30% to 40% of cases.

Epidemiology and medical books from the pre vaccine period state that meningitis occurred in less than 2.5% of clinical cases. This equals less than 1% of total cases. The prognosis for mumps meningitis is good and there is no specific treatment.

How this has suddenly inflated into figures like 10% I don't quite know. (Actually to be fair the NHS quotes a remarkably large ballpark figure of between 1 and 10%).

This what they have to say on both meningitis and pancreatitis;

Pancreatitis
The most common symptom of pancreatitis is the sudden onset of pain in the centre of your upper abdomen. Other symptoms of acute pancreatitis can include:

• nausea,
• vomiting,
• diarrhoea,
• loss of appetite,
• high temperature (fever) of 38C (100F), or above,
• tenderness of the abdomen and, less commonly,
• yellowing of the skin and the whites of the eyes (jaundice).

Although pancreatitis that is associated with mumps is usually mild, admission to hospital may be recommended so that the functions of your body can be supported until your pancreas recovers.

Viral meningitis

Viral meningitis is a viral infection of the outer membranes (meninges) of your brain and spinal cord.

Unlike bacterial meningitis, which is regarded as a potentially life-threatening medical emergency, viral meningitis causes much milder, flu-like symptoms, and the risk of serious complications are low.

Symptoms of viral meningitis include:

• high temperature (fever) of 38C (100F), or above,
• sensitivity to light (photophobia),
• headache,
• nausea, and
• vomiting.

The symptoms of viral meningitis will usually pass within 14 days

I don't think it is helpful to bandy sinister sounding conditions like meningitis and pancreatitis about without putting them into some sort of context.

'expat - Rubella is indeed a very mild disease. So mild that most people don't even know that they have had it. The only people who should be wary of it are pregnant women who are not immune. That is why there should be a program to detect immunity at 15 or so and vaccinate the non-immune.'

Guess my other mother is just a liar then, Cote.

Again, there was no vaccine at the time, and she just didn't get it until she was 17 (got measles at 7 and, as already stated, lost a significant proportion of hearing in one ear then and now, all of it).

And is it really going to be cost-effective to titre all 15-year-old girls, who all just love having blood drawn at that age, rather than vaccinate?

Last I checked, too, plenty of teenage girls get pregnant before that age.

A couple more links for those interested in the measles/vitamin A connection

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19447880

"Would those objecting to the 3 in 1 be prepared to buy the singles at cost price? "

I would! It must be a difference of about £5 per jab. I would very happily pay that to get a single vax. As it is now I have to pay some £100 per jab privately, and that cost is a bit harder to swallow.

Expat, that must have been awful for your mum. If she caught it at 17 she was no longer a child though. Can you not see that a vaccine that wears off in the teenage years is going to put more people into the same risk area as your mum? Giving children the opportunity to catch it when they are young and then be immune for life and testing them for immunity when they reach puberty makes much more sense.

Why do you think it is an extra £5 per jab, out of interest?

I would have thought the additional time administering + the private cost of the single vacs would come to more than that. That would be my feeling anyway.

How did you arrive at your figure?

Am also interested to understand what otehr vacs people would like removed from the UK vaccination program.

This is interesting. 'Despite common belief there is no firm evidence that orchitis causes sterility'.

'Can you not see that a vaccine that wears off in the teenage years is going to put more people into the same risk area as your mum? Giving children the opportunity to catch it when they are young and then be immune for life and testing them for immunity when they reach puberty makes much more sense.'

It may make more sense, but it's probably far more cost-prohibitive.

And now the MMR is boostered in early teens/early adulthood for this very reason.

As someone also pointed out, the chance to catch it doesn't always present itself when you want it.

But hey, it's your kids suffering through diseases like this, not mine.

I'm no expert on costing vaccines, but I can't believe the NHS pays for vaccines anywhere near what private GP's charge me.

It was pretty much a wild guess actually.

Does anyone know what the difference would be per vaccine?

Expat. I really don't think either DS 'suffered' with rubella. We didn't even know ds2 was ill until the rash came out. 30% of mumps cases are asymptomatic so they may have already had that. We will test them when they hit puberty. In any case, many of the symptoms of the diseases, such as Orchitis, are side effects of the mmr, and vaccines are not 100% effective ( the mumps component in particular isn't that effective) so just because you've given your children the mmr doesn't mean they won't catch any of the diseases.

Vaccines are probably pretty cheap - I know that a lot of drugs aren't but vaccines I would guess are, maybe

They are generally against paying for "top up" treatment on the NHS though aren't they. As if they offered single vacs on the NHS to people who were able/wanted to pay extra, it would be the same as admitting that there was something wrong with the combined jab, and then there would be accusations of giving unsafe medicines to poor people. The press would approach it like that, I'm sure. You'd end up with even more hysteria, it would simply stoke it all up again.

Still interested in what other vacs people would like dropped from the programme. Measles, mumps and rubella, dropped, are there any more?

I know on other threads that swine flu and seasonal flu vacs were out - are there any more that people would like to see the back of?

I've actually always wondered why they give tetanus so early. Apart fromconvenience really....

Ok that's quite a biggy I think.

Any more?

It's a 5-in-1 jab, too. So throw out the other 4.

Pneumoccocal meningitis? Anyone want to see the back of that one?

What's the fifth? Is that the tetanus?

Why do you think it's a biggy ISNT?

diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, Hib and polio

I think there's quite a lot of evidence that whooping cough strain has mutated, and therefore the jab is not very effective anyway. Also part of tje 5 in 1 I think.

I was told (when living in Africa) the the TB jab is unreliable too. I did do some reading about it, bit was years ago now. I know I ended up not wanting dd1 to have it, but they went ahead and gave it to her anyway.

'I've actually always wondered why they give tetanus so early. Apart fromconvenience really.... '

NOTHING to do with the fact that tetanus fatalities are highest amongst infants and the elderly then ? (As with all of the other infectious diseases that our children can be vaccinated against )