Children aged 1-9 in LONDON to be offered polio vaccine

[Dalint]

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/polio-vaccine-children-london-outbreak-b2142219.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=IND_Breaking_News%20polio&utm_term=IND_Breaking_Newsletter

Why only London?

In case this is a vaccine-resistant variant? Because immunity wanes? Because if he does come into contact with polio for one of these reasons, you want to be sure he will survive and not have lifelong consequences? Because public health officials have been weighing up the risk since this was discovered a couple of months ago and have decided this is a reasonable and proportionate response?

It’s no different from having a tetanus booster if you’ve stepped on a rusty nail.

Nobody is going to make you have your child vaccinated, so if for some reason you feel that another dose of a vaccine he’s already had twice is going to harm him in some way, you can just not have it.

OP why are you so angry about this? What's the problem exactly?

Why do you view it as a punishment? Strange view to have!

Yes, but the risk of encountering polio in the community has gone up so the schedule is being amended.

What is your specific concern? Are you concerned this is being offered to those 1-9 those aged 10-13 are not being offered the booster?

For what it worth, my DS (age 3) will definitely be having it. It seems eminently sensible.

How old is your son? If he had his pre-school booster at 3 years 4 months then he won't get the extra booster. They're only giving it at least a year after the pre school booster.

*Recommended every ten years? So, my toddler who received the vaccine at 6 months, needs it again today, now that she's two?

Stop talking nonsense.*

adults are in risk areas then it's recommended.

www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/polio-immunisation

Oh that's useful to know. He's actually not yet three so I assume it will be picked up then.

@dehloh I'm probably a little touchy as OP seems to have a huge problem with a sensible, proactive, preventative vaccine programme. Probably also because I have a young DD and the world is a scary place right now. Sorry to snap.

It is an invitation. Turn it don if you wish.

You seem excessively angry about this.

He doesn't need one, he's being offered one to boast immunity. You can simply say no thanks. He won't be likely to get it anyway but would be even less likely with the booster - that's all! No need for the drama.

Nah, your fine! I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. Also touchy

But you don't even know if she's vaccinated, apparently. It would have been 4 months anyway and she would be due a booster with the "pre school" set of vaccinations anyway.

You seem excessively angry about this.

Irrationally so.
OP No one is forcing any kids to have it, it's simply being offered

Crikey OP why are you getting so angry?

Not all children get the vaccine as some parents don't take them to have them.

That went better than I thought it might 😁 thanks @dehloh. Probably also the heat!

We live in one of the boroughs mentioned. DD is due her pre-school booster (which includes Polio) and I can't even get through to the GP surgery to get her booked in. Would love to know how they're going to resource this.

Because I do not trust this government and I think that they think we are all twits who question nothing.
If the vaccine was deemed to protect children until the age of 14, why are 1-9 year olds, being offered it?
They know something that they are not telling us.

Either it's not effective, their previous regime was not effective or the the virus has mutated and NONE of us are protected,

There's also no harm in the vaccine being given before the 10 years it's will be done so to balance cost effectiveness over waining immunity in a population where the disease isn't generally present. The disease is potentially present so now they have offered to bring it forward as a precaution to at risk groups. As with why they are not immediately vaccinating the entire Uk they couldn't sustain vaccinating people every couple of years long term when it's not deemed necessary. That's not good use of funds

If you decide not to vaccinate someone, cool. Take the risk.
But if you're told that you're vaccinated, why now are you suddenly needing another shot of it?
Either it's effective as per the schedule, or it's not!

Live in London and have a son in the age group to be offered them booster. I will take him to get boosted. The article I read said the GP will contact parents within the next month.

id be happier if our older son (outside the age range for the emergency booster and not old enough for the standard teenage booster) was offered it too to be honest.

it’s not a punishment (re the class punishment example). It’s to protect him and reduce the risk of it circulating.

all vaccine info is clear that no vaccine is 100% effective. as I understand it a booster will boost his protection if he doesn’t yet have full protection.

It was and probably is still effective. The situation has changed and therefore you CAN HAVE not NEED a booster just to give extra. Doesn't seem like any huge conspiracy just an offer to those who want to be prepared for the worst - which might never happen

This is info aimed at travellers, but might help those trying to understand the situation. travelhealthpro.org.uk/disease/144/polio

Me too. Live vaccine I think ? on a sugar cube used to be the norm.

OP. As another poster has already pointed out, the risk has increased, therefore Public Health England have decided it is appropriate to make sure as many children as possible are vaccinated in the most at risk area. The current vaccination schedule would have been laid out based on the previous, virtually non-existent risk. Higher risk = need to reduce the times between boosters to maximise protection. It doesn't mean the vaccine doesn't work. Polio was, to all intents and purposes, eradicated in thi country because of the vaccine!

Right. “They know something they’re not telling us”. No, they know what they ARE telling us, and what they are telling us means that what they are proposing is a good and understandable response.

It should comfort you that the government doesn’t come up with these ideas round the cabinet table.

The matter has been considered carefully over the last couple of months since it came to light by public health experts. These are academics and scientists who know what they are talking about. They have decided that this is a reasonable and proportionate response to the level of risk and the possible consequences of the threat the findings pose.

Then they take their proposals to the government, who usually say - okay, you know way more about it than we do, let’s do what you suggest. And rubber stamp the proposals once they have found the funds to deliver them.

It’s not a conspiracy.