Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Children's health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Measles - are babies at risk before they have the MMR?

21 replies

hotpotmama · 03/12/2008 22:28

Just wondering why it is left until the age it is?

Are their immune syastems too immature to have the MMR any younger than they do?

OP posts:
whomovedmychocolate · 03/12/2008 23:03

No, they have natural immunity from their mothers till 1. Which is why they give it at 13 months.

whomovedmychocolate · 03/12/2008 23:04

Also about 13 months is when they start licking/interacting heavily with other children so are more likely to contract communicable diseases.

LedodgyChristmasjumper · 03/12/2008 23:04

Won't they only have natural immunity from their mothers if their mothers have either had measles or have been vacinated themselves?

PlonkerTeatowelOnTheirHeads · 03/12/2008 23:07

I thought young babies relied on herd immunity to keep safe from these diseases?

Happy to be corrected though ...

ChangedMyMind · 03/12/2008 23:08

I was told that their best defence between 6months & having the MMR was ensuring that older siblings are vaccinated which implies they no longer have Mum's immunity protection.

trixiethepixie · 04/12/2008 10:34

Glad you asked that question as ds has just had his mmr moved forward 2 months (due to risk of measles outbreak) and I was wondering if his immune system would be too immature for it. Now I won't have to ask the nurse.

beeper · 04/12/2008 13:51

A babies best defence against measles is to have passive immunity from a mother that has had it and recoverd. But most of us have been robbed of that via the jab.

Dont let them vax your under one because is has NEVER been tested on underones and they have no knowledge of any potential difficulties.

too late now though for some..

SleighGirl · 04/12/2008 14:16

There is no way I'd have let them give it to my dc early, I would want them over the average weight of a 13 month old & be positive they were 100% well.

hotpotmama · 04/12/2008 22:03

Thanks for that, I never knew that they had natural immunity until 1. Good to know that.

OP posts:
louii · 04/12/2008 22:05

So if i had the measles as a child, Breastfed DS till he was 2 would he be protected for longer than a year??

jimjamshaslefttheyurt · 04/12/2008 22:05

If you have had measles they should have natural immunity. If you haven't had measles they may not (and even if you've had it lack of circulating measles means you won't have been boosted).

If you vaccinate before natural immunity has worn off it won't work very well. It;s why measles vaccination works slightly better at 15 rather than 13 months.

DoNotsAntlers · 04/12/2008 22:09

I would have thought herd immunity would be the biggest factor TBH

LedodgyChristmasjumper · 04/12/2008 22:09

Does anybody know why natural immunity wears off? I'm just thinking out loud here but if they have gained some immunity from us because we have had measles then did they not get this because our immunity in theory acted like a vaccine would to their bodies. I do know natural immunity and vaccinated immunity does wear off hence boosters but how come vaccinated immunity seems to take longer to wear off than natural immunity which goes at around a year old? Just wondering.

alienbump · 04/12/2008 22:12

My DS1 had measles at around 7/8 months old, and I had it myself as a child so immunity isn't always present in under ones.

jimjamshaslefttheyurt · 04/12/2008 22:13

Natural immunity is passive. It's just antibodies passed from the mother. If you are vaccinated you make your own antibodies (and more if you catch the disease).

If you give measles vaccination when you still have passive antibodies circulating then you will not produce an immune response.

alienbump · 04/12/2008 22:16

Just had a thought - DD2 who was 2 a couple of weeks ago - is due to have her MMR next week. As she's still a pretty frequent breast feeder does that mean she will have natural immunity which will lessen the effectiveness of the vaccine?

LedodgyChristmasjumper · 04/12/2008 22:18

Ahh right thanks Jimjams. Also do you think it's possible to be born with an immunity to something and for it to last? I know I have never had chicken pox in fact when I had measles my best friend had chicken pox, I have been around it all my life and never had it. When pregnant this time round I came into contact with it so had to have my immunity tested and I was immune. Now I know I may at some point had it very very mildly and my mum or dad didn't notice but it does seem strange. Also a few times we've thought dd had chicken pox because all her friends had them and she did develop about 6 spots on her back but they didn't blister and dissappeared after a day so it got me wondering if some people are genetically predisposed to some diseases more than others. I'm rambling now but am in a pondering mood!

jimjamshaslefttheyurt · 04/12/2008 22:19

Probably not because the amount she'll be getting through breastmilk will be small. Ask your doc though.

hellywobs · 09/12/2008 17:22

If the mother had the disease, they will pass on their natural immunity and the child is "safe" until about a year old. But if you were immunised, no such advantage, it doesn't get passed on. Not sure what this means for the age at which they will immunise against measles in future as far fewer women will have had the disease.

The immunisation protection wears off after around 11 years.

needmorecoffee · 09/12/2008 17:32

catching measles makes you immune for life.

hellywobs · 09/12/2008 17:36

Catching the illness makes you immune for life, but the artifical immunity from the MMR or measles vaccine doesn't. Don't know why - anyone know and can explain in words of one syllable on here?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page