TB vaccine dilemma

[BubsMaw]

Hi, I'm considering getting my DC a TB vaccine, wondering if anyone else out there has done the same, perhaps you could share your thinking and experience.

When my DD (nearly 5yo) was born I wasn't aware the vaccine schedule had changed as we lived in an area which was low risk for TB (i.e. a low incidence of infections), it wasn't offered, and I hadn't been expecting it to be offered. When I was younger there was nationwide vaccination of teenagers, I had mine aged 14 or 15, as did most other people. As you're prob aware this no longer happens, and newborns in certain areas receive the TB vaccine instead.

We have since moved house and my DS was born here, and roughly half of all kids in our new area have the vaccine at birth, it depends on which hospital babies are born in as one local one vaccinates newborns for TB, the other one doesn't.

When I googled around the subject of TB risk and reasons for the change in NHS vaccine schedule, all I could find was some vague blah about frequency of infection and ethnicity.

So in the light of recent news reports about resurgence of TB I'm considering getting the DC vaccinated. I expect I'd have to go private for this, which I'm OK with.

So anyone out there had the same dilemma - what did you decide and why? Anybody have any problems with vaccination, or regrets about their decision? Is there an optimal age - neither of mine are newborn any more, but I'm wondering if sooner is better.

Thank you!

We live in London (high risk area for TB). I had both my DD vaccinated as babies. No regrets, no complications, no worries. BCG vaccine has been around for years without any apparent I'll effects.

I'd do it if you're in a city - ds had it done at 6 weeks being registered at a Lambeth GP. If he'd been registered with mine over the borough border he wouldn't ahve got it then but I think would now.

No side effects, it's a really well-tested vaccine, having been given to teenagers for over 30 years. And now badgers. :)

I am puzzled, if it is necessary, why would you have to pay privately? Surely it is cheaper to vaccinate than treat the disease. FWIW, DD had hers at birth and has no ill effects.

Bubsmaw iirc It was discontinued because it was shown to be inefficient. The tests showed some really varying results. 60-80% efficiency in the UK but only 14% in the US. I wouldn't vaccinate against it even if I did live in the city and tbh I don't understand that logic. Surely it would be possible to catch it on a visit too?

Thanks for your replies. We live on the outskirts of a city with relatively high TB incidence, if we lived any closer to the centre then DS would have got vaccinated at birth.

I'm just not sure if its necessary, this is the part I don't understand. Babies in high risk areas, and babies of certain ethnic backgrounds and of immigrants from certain overseas countries also get vaccinated. This logic doesn't stack up when you consider that people are mobile, travel in and out of cities and indeed all over the world. TB infects people of all ethnicities.

My DS was born under the care of local hospital x which doesn't vaccinate newborns; equally, living where I do I could have chosen to use hospital y which does vaccinate newborns. This is why locally some but not all kids have been vaccinated.

bubbley, the inefficiency is something I also hadn't considered. I'm struggling to find sensible info on the net (the internet is flooded with vaccine hysteria). I wonder if the TB infection rate grew too fast then perhaps there would be a return to vaccinating all kids, at a younger age than before, with a catch-up programme for older unvaccinated kids. All this would take time though and I wonder if I should just get my DC vaccinated now.