Infant BCG?

[Verso]

My HV urged us to make sure DD has the infant BCG vaccination, and her appointment has come through for this week. Thing is, I've been reading about it and it sounds horrible (big needle/weeping sore/long healing/risk of illness etc). I think vaccinations are generally a good thing but I don't see why she can't wait until she's at school like most children. It was nominally 'optional', but we were made to feel we ought to do it (this was at the first home visit shortly after the birth). It now turns out few of my friends are putting their children forward for it.

We live in London, which apparently puts us at high risk of TB. Does anyone have any views or experience to share on this subject?

Thanks!

I am going to take DS(4) to our GP and insist on the BCG, we live in Surrey, but TB is TB.

I have a friend who went into hospital in London with a kidney infection,after two days they discovered the woman in the bed next to her had TB .

When I rang the surgery they said they don't normally get it until they are 14.

That's alright then, only another 14 years of Russian Roulette.

TB is on the rise and has been for the last ten years.

dd had her mmr the other day.. just talking about jabs in the future and I was laughing to the nurse telling her "thank god I didn't have to have my bsg when at school like my mates" she said that they weren't having them any more in their teens like we used to, as there wasn't any need in that age group anymore.

I'm with Sherlock and all 3 of mine have had the BCG - all before they were 12 weeks. The immediate area in which we live is not particularly high risk but we don't live that far from a major city, we travel on trains, planes etc and TB is on the rise. I'm not taking any chances.

Just been reading on the nhs immunisation website how the policy on BCG has changed:

here

It probably IS the best thing to do, I know. I just was surprised when a local friend of mine said neither of her children (6 and 1) had had it or been recommended it. It's also only 60-70% effective, but I suppose that is still much better than not being immunised at all.

DD had hers at 3 weeks, we were living in Hendon (NW London) at the time and TB was rife. DD is now 7 we are in rural Norfolk and none of her school has had it

TB is on such an increase atm

Ok silly question here - did it scar really badly and how long did it take to heal?

(I know TB can kill, so a scar is nothing in comparison, but this is my first baby and I'm a bit protective and sentimental!)

My grandmother died of TB so I guess I am biased. If you live in an area with a real risk, then it is worth it. The HV would not be offering the jab unless they believed it was a genuine health risk - it is expensive to jab people and would not waste the budget unless they were convinced IMHO. The fact that there seems a low turn over of people taking this vaccine up would make it seem like more of a good idea as the fewer vaccined means more potential to spread through an area in the future.
As a student, a fellow student in the same hostel as me from Africa developed TB symptoms over here. A lot of panic amongst others, was very relieved as I had the jab as a baby (because of my Gran).

Well I can't remember it worrying me (dd is a fisrt and only) so it can't have been a bad 'sore'

And her scar is very small (much less noticeable than mine or DH's)

This is a crazy thing for them to stop this vaccination unless asked for. Who knows who is high risk and where is high risk. What happens if we were to visit a high risk area of the UK like say LONDON, which is obviously quite a chance we might!

I can't quite believe this, then, on the other hand they are thinking of chucking in the chicken pox vaccine with the MMR, because it can be nasty!

both my children had bcg jabs at their 6 week checks. ds is now 3.5yrs & has a small scar on his arm that you have to look pretty hard to see. dd is 10 weeks & you can't see it at all!

Okydoke. Thanks for all the feedback. I daresay there's no reason NOT to get it since it's been offered.

From what I've read, there is a lack of vaccine in the UK, which is why they are restricting it to 'high risk' groups. One of those groups is children in nurseries in South London, because in 2001 three children caught it from one of the staff at a nursery.

The thing that surprised me was that my friend in a neighbouring borough had not been offered it. Yet another example of the 'postcode lottery' of the NHS? (Discuss! lol)

ds1 is 4.5 and ds2 is almost 3 - their scars are barely noticeable now.

ds3 is just one and his is still a 'sore' but the others took ages to calm down as well. It's not bothering him.

This is interesting. DS was born in wes London (Queen Charlotte) in May and TCB is not only offered but strongly encouraged before leaving the hospital. So he had it. But DD, who was born in Epsom in March 2003 was not offered it. Epsom still doesn't offer it. Apparently West London has a high rate of TCB so if you live there it is on offer (it is in the Hammersmith trust anyway).

Sometimes I think oh it doesn't exist much in the western world. But, my nephew who lives in Chicago had TB when he was a toddler so I figure it can happen anywhere.

My ds1 had it when he was about 5 months old, mainly because there was an increase in TB in London at the time, but also (and although this was less important to us, this is the reason we gave to the GP to request it) because dh was doing a lot of business trips to India at the time. Poor ds1 had just missed the age where he didn't have to have the arm test first before vaccination - but he coped with both brilliantly - didn't even cry. Think I was more upset because of the mark on "my pristine baby" (of course, as soon as he could crawl he got himself far more battered!)

Ds2 hasn't been done, but it does worry me slightly. We don't live in London anymore though, so I feel the risks are smaller at the moment. I may well review when he's a bit older.

hello verso. we live in newham, v high levels of tb, so bcg given to all babies in first week. ds (4 months) - and most other babies i see around here - has 2mm red mark, bit like a spot, causes no probs and doesn't look as though it will scar. i too was worried about this, but really nothing to fret over.

Hi Verso.... I had dd done at about 8-10 weeks locally, and really had to look for it, it wasn't offered at St Mary's where she was born (I'm Hammersmith). Just felt that living in London etc and with TB on the rise, it was best to be on the safe side. She squealed when it was done, then fell immediately fast asleep, and I couldn't see anything at all for months. Now she has a little dot on her arm with a slight thickening under the skin. Frankly the other 2,3,4, month jabs have been much more traumatic, she's screamed her head off (makes me cry myself ), and generally has neede calpol afterwards. I know I'm going to do a lot of humming and hawing over the MMR, but funnily enough, I didn't hesitate over the BCG... good luck with yr ddcision!

I had dd done under pressure from the doctor and regretted it when I read an article in the Guardian saying that they were actually a waste of time for many of the people who have it done. I live in E. London, a high TB area but apparently it would not be dangerous for us because we are not in the at risk groups.

My dd had a massive disgusting weeping sore on her arm for the best part of a year and it stands out in many photographs.

I am not saying I definitely won't do it, but I will research it much more carefully than last time. The surgeries get money for each bcg injection they give.