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

I also think we don't actually expect our children to be ill- because these diseases really are rare, and we are complacent about our children's health these days. If we lived with the constant fear, as those in times gone by did, that there was a real risk of children dying from a childhood disease before they were 5 then we might not be so dismissing of vaccines like the mmr, we would be grateful for modern medicine.

Now I've really heard it all.

Do you really think that parents who don't adhere rigidly.to the vaccination schedule are complacent with their children's health?

The mindboggles.

I don't know. It seems that if the vaccine actually worked you wouldn't catch the disease you were vaccinated against. I would assume that if you did catch the disease after vaccination you must fall into that group of people that it doesn't work for in which case it wouldn't make it milder.... You would either be protected or not... No in between iyswim.

I am aware that the MMR vaccine may cause death, however that likeliehood is AFAIK far smaller than death through measles (so small I chose to discount it).

I am also aware that there is no scientific evidence for MMR/Autism link, but was trying to stay away from that particular argument, and analyse based purely on a ( v basic) analysis of risk.

Also think that was a good point about convalescing. Wasn't that one of the campaigns used in the US for tge chickenpox vaccine? That the price of the vaccne was less than what it would cost you to take time off work to look after your sick child. .

Iirc it's not measles itself that kills it's the possible complications such as pneumonia (as with flu) so a proper convalescing period where the person can fully recover would surely help a lot.

whomovedmychocolate - that sounds just like my memory of childhood Measles, Chickenpox, Mumps, Scarlet Fever etc. I have 2 friends that were both really scared for their jobs when they needed time off to look after their children when they had Chickenpox, which is terrible.

I do think that's awful onajourney. I've been an employer and there's just some things you just have to take on the chin and staff absences due to serious childhood illnesses is one of them.

People don't do convalescing these days do they - if your GP said 'you need to take two weeks off work and spend them in bed doing nothing' your automatic response would be 'I can't possibly do that' isn't it? because everyone assumes there must be a cure of some kind.

True, I think it's a bit of a shame really, I look back on those times when I was ill and I don't think of being ill, I just remember the lovely stories, ice cream in bed and my dad covering me in calamine lotion !

There was a measles epidemic in Dublin in 2000 affecting 1200 children.

111 children were admitted to Childrens University hospital.
79% had dehydration.
47% had pneumonia
11% were admitted to intensive care unit
3 children died.
These were all previously healthy children who had not been vaccinated in an area of low

Jaffacake, that's slightly misleading. I think two of the children who died were malnourished or had underlying health conditions of some sort.

I'm confused - I followed the threads about Andrew Wakefield and most pro him were saying he never linked Autism with MMR, he discovered a link between children with autism and bowel disease and MMR - So which is it? I'm still seeing people link mmr/autism

Back on topic - I wasn't immunised due to guidelines at the time (asthma/allergies) and had measles, mumps and whooping cough all in one year (age 10). Mumps wasn't so bad - whooping cough was terrible, I can vividly remember the panic of not knowing when the coughing fit would pass and I could breath again, I passed out daily due to lack of oxygen, it lasted 2 months. Measles was also terrible - dark room, sunglasses due to pain in my eyes (think being poked in them repeatedly) hallucinations due to fever, general hurting all over - It was over 30 years ago and I can remember it all like it was yesterday

I insisted all mine were vaccinated, even one they didn't want to, I couldn't cope with measles/whooping cough age 10 and I would never want to see a small baby/child go through it

I think measles has always been known as a serious illness, wasn't it one of the biggest killers at one time?

This was reported in the BMJ British Medical Journal in a paper written by doctors from the hospital where the children were admitted.
Also reported by Irish National disease surveillance centre.
Maybe they are misleading ?

bubbleymummy

Im not sure that if some of the children had underlying health conditions makes the statistics misleading.
Im sure that lots of us posting here have at least one child with an 'underlying health condition' (I know I do), IMO it doesnt minimise the risk.

Hi scaredoflove, I think the issue is that even though Wakefield's research didn't point to a link btwn MMR and autism, he did make this correlation himself in the press conference. It was picked up by the press and reported very badly and inaccurately for a long time and hence the 2 are still very much linked in the public mind.

One thing I think me and the non-vaxers on here can agree on is that the press have a lot to answer for in the subsequent scare, and that more detailed and better research is required into the possible effects of MMR on a very small subsection of the population.

Jaffacake, I meant that saying they were all previously healthy children is misleading.

Bigstripey, of course the deaths are tragic. I don't want to come across as thinking otherwise. However, with underlying health conditions these children could have been susceptible to serious illness from a cold or flu.

by bubbleymummy Wed 02-Jun-10 19:58:24
Jaffacake, that's slightly misleading. I think two of the children who died were malnourished or had underlying health conditions of some sort.

I have to say that this kind of comment makes me sad and angry at the same time. So what if the children had "underlying health conditions"? The risk of death is equally valid whether or not the child has underlying health conditions (whatever that means) or not.

Why is it "misleading" to mention death rates if the child already had a condition? I think it would be horribly misleading (and of course extremely unpleasant) to ignore a death for that reason.

having an underlying condition is NOT the same as being "unhealthy"
Many many of the people who worry about the risks of measles are the people who are worried about the possible effects on someone with an underlying condition.
It really won't do to just dismiss them as "not healthy". their deaths count, and the risk to their lives is every bit as valid as any other child

This is slightly off topic but I am a paranoid new mum.

I'm interested to know roughly how many babies these days in the UK get measles in the 13 months before they are due to have the first MMR jab?

It isnt just that the deaths are equally tragic, but also that I'm not sure what proportion of children could be described as having 'underlying health conditions' - I remember when swine flu was very prevalent that people with problems such as asthma were described as having underlying health conditions, so presumably quite a large proportion of people would then be said to have an underlying health condition.

I think that Im not explaining myself very well, but what Im trying to say is that if, say 1 in 100 children have an 'underlying health condition' and they form 2/3 of the deaths, then that makes me think in a different way about the figures than if it is, 2 in 3 children are described as having an 'underlying health condition', and then make up 2/3 of the deaths.

Harpsichord please read my last post. It's misleading to describe the victims as 'all previously healthy' when they weren't. I did not intend to belittle their deaths.

harpsichordcarrier, I agree. In any random sample of the population, some will have underlying health conditions of some sort - that doesn't mean their deaths should be discounted - risk assessments of measles in the wild take into account those people who are more likely to be susceptible to complications, rightly so.

bearcrumble, some folk on here will be sick of me banging on about it but my DD caught measles in exactly the conditions you describe, she was 10mo. I don't know how many children in that age group are affected each year tbh but it was quite scary esp before the rash appeared and she was properly diagnosed. Thankfully it was just one week of illness and she made a full recovery.

The measles epidemic in Dublin was used throughout the medical professions in Europe as a clear indicator of what happens when we lose herd immunity.
The children who died have not been reported as having previous illnesses.
Also the stress upon the hospital of these large numbers of children being admitted with complications of measles had serious consequences upon other children who were needing the hospital for their health treatments.
Please dont minimise this,it was a tragic time for Dublin and should be seen as a warning about how serious measles can be.

thanks jaffacake, it's definitely food for thought here in Britain. I think people haven't seen an epidemic for so long they don't know what it really means.

I have read your last post very very carefully.
I really don't understand what needs clarifying.
IF children are dead, then that is the death rate. It is not misleading at all.
Three children died, so why the need to point out that one of them had an underlying condition? I don't really understand WHY the need to point that out AT ALL tbh, other than to in some way point out that the death is less serious, less bad, not really as worrying.

Whenever I hear about an outbreak of measles, my heart is in my mouth.
If my nieces caught measles, they would die.
But if their deaths were reported, then that would be somehow "misleading" because they had a condition?
Tell me, how to cope with that idea, that kind of remark without getting very sad and angry about the underlying attitudes, because I find it very difficult.