Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
General health

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

Original poster

Is it just me or is the wording of the reports about the measles outbreak in Liverpool a bit strange?

33 replies

bumbleymummy · 07/03/2012 10:07

I've read quite a few now that have used the wording 'children who did not have the MMR at 13 months' . Does that mean they had singles/had the MMR later? If they are completely unvaccinated then surely they would have just said that? It just seems a bit strange to me - as if children who did have the MMR but maybe at 14/15/16+ months have caught measles but they don't want to say that because it would raise questions about the efficiency of the vaccine...

OP posts:
silverfrog · 07/03/2012 16:33

I've read a couple, and have come across the statement 'there are X number of unvaccinated and partially vaccinated children under the age of 5 in the area'

this also struck me as odd, as even with 100% take up of the mmr, there owuld be Y number of unvaccinated and partially vaccinated children under the age of 5, yet the tone of the articles has been a 'blame the unvaccinated' type.

on the hwole there tends not to be any data held on singles vaccines, so those children are counted as unvaccinated, but yes, I see your point re: slightly delayed mmr cases.

sloppy reporting all round, I reckon (but whethe rtha tis intentional or not is hard to say!)

saintlyjimjams · 07/03/2012 16:35

The earlier it's given the less effective it is - so those given it later than 13 months should be more likely to have immunity.

It's always hard to find a sensible news report though.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 07/03/2012 18:51

Yes, saintly. It just made me wonder why they worded it like that. It sounds so...awkward or something. Why would you specifically say 'at 13 months' - why not even say 'first MMR'.

OP posts:
CatherinaJTV · 08/03/2012 03:37

nope, not just you, I thought the same - not clear why we don't just get the stats, ages, # of vaccine doses.

saintlyjimjams · 08/03/2012 08:41

They never give the stats anyway as they lump 'singles' in with 'unvaccinated' which is plainly bonkers.

I'd trust their pronouncements a lot more if they didn't feel the need to spin every bit of news about measles.

catsareevil · 08/03/2012 08:43

Its probably related to the way that they collect data ie MMR at 13 months or not. If there isnt a later point that they collect information at then they wouldnt know, IYSWIM.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 08/03/2012 08:48

But cats, surely they would just record 'first MMR' rather than the specific month. Some children in certain areas are being offered it at 12 months, others are usually 13-15 months and some are delayed due to appt times and/or illness. It just makes it look a bit suspicious to me to be so specific.

OP posts:
Original poster
bumbleymummy · 08/03/2012 08:49

Sorry - Last sentence a bit jumbled - trying to post quickly! Hope you kwim!

OP posts:
saintlyjimjams · 08/03/2012 08:53

If measles is notifiable can they not collect vaccination status stats then? I wonder. Because you would think they would want to know that to check for vaccine failure. And if there are vaccine failures to check for dodgy batches.

I'm always quite interested in where the outbreaks occur. Because if for example an outbreak occurred in a Steiner school where ime many don't vaccinate then you might expect large numbers to contract measles. And in a small total that would push the stats up. But in fact it would actually be a relatively self contained outbreak of limited to concern to anyone outside the community. If the numbers were the same but random unconnected people then it would be a sign (IMO) of a potentially larger problem.

seeker · 08/03/2012 08:54

If you choose not to vaccinate your child against any disease, you have to accept the fact that your actions are going to make it more likely that there will be an outbreak of that disease. I am not saying that you don't have the right to make that choice. But it must be made clear sightedly. And hunting for conspiracies in press reports is running interference which gets in the way of that clear sightedness.

saintlyjimjams · 08/03/2012 08:59

Who is hunting for conspiracies in press reports? I'm genuinely interested in who is catching measles. And if young adults are catching it I'm very interested in whether they have ever been vaccinated or not. And if so when. I would have thought that's the sort of thing that the dept of health would be interested in as well tbh. :shrugs: I'm a bit concerned if they're not collecting that data!

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 08/03/2012 09:15

Seeker, I think the point is that it's difficult to be clear sighted when the information isn't available. As others have said, it would be nice to see a breakdown of the outbreak showing the age of the cases and their vaccine status. It doesn't seem like to much to ask for really - surely that data should be collected anyway?

This doesnt just effect those who aren't vaccinating with MMR either. If someone is vaccinating their child they expect them to be protected - if it turns out that the first MMR isn't giving as much protection as it was supposed to then people should know that and perhaps adjust the schedule accordingly. E.g. give the first dose later to see if it is more effective (less interference with maternal antibodies perhaps) and/or give the two doses closer together if that would ensure better immunity faster.

OP posts:
silverfrog · 08/03/2012 10:04

saintly, last year on a Wakefield/mmr thread there was apaediatric HDU nurse who said her unit saw 'many many' annual cases of measles complications, but that no data was collected on whether the child was vaccinated or unvaccinated. she was unsure whether this was just her unit/hospital which did not collect data, or whether it was widespread practice.

it struck me as bizarre - surely the first thing asked/checked would be vaccination status? it seems to be for anything I take my 2 in for...

mind you, dd2 had mumps a couple of weeks back, and the GP was remarkably unconcerned and not really going to bother swabbing (he wanted it noted as a 'mumps-like virus' Hmm, despite her non-vaccinated status) until I pointed out to him that mumps is notifiable, and therefore surely he should make sure? he grumpily agreed. there was an awful lot of 'non-specific virus' (with mumps symptoms) in dd2's school before half term...

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 08/03/2012 10:06

Did you get the results of the swab back yet silver?

OP posts:
silverfrog · 08/03/2012 10:11

yes, it was positive.

it took 2 weeks to get the results back, and dd1 had been off school for a bit as she was sniffly and I wasn't sure if she was coming down with 'whatever it was' (she didn't, in the end, or if she did it was very mild) and didn't want ot spread it around (seeing as I was pretty sure it was mumps) - she is at a SN school, with lots of unvaccinated children.

I had to chase, mind you - the surgery was not bothered whether I knew the results or not Hmm

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 08/03/2012 10:35

Crazy! So that 'mumps-like' virus in the other kids probably was mumps too. It really makes a bit of a mockery out of the whole reporting system doesn't it? I really do wonder how effective these vaccines really are. I'm sure quite a few vaccinated people are diagnosed with 'mumps-like'/'measles-like' viruses and don't even question it because they think it couldn't possibly be the real thing because they've been vaccinated. Why would any of them push for a swab to be taken? Not sure how that could be addressed though...

OP posts:
fatagainkathsigh · 09/03/2012 17:26

It's just you OP.

QueenOfFlippingEverything · 09/03/2012 17:31

If vaccination status is being used as a diagnostic tool for notifiable diseases then the stats are going to be completely unreliable Confused

Shouldn't all suspected cases be confirmed properly (ie by a blood test)? Otherwise, fully vaxed children may be underdiagnosed and unvaxed children overdiagnosed, making any stats pretty meaningless...

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 09/03/2012 18:39

They should Queen, but going by my own and silverfrog's experience the doctors don't seem to be doing those tests. They don't even require blood to be taken - it's usually just a swab so it's not even that traumatic!

OP posts:
sashh · 10/03/2012 11:16

silverfrog

Re the not reporting vaccine status in the HDU- if a child is in hospital with measels complications then they are not immune to measels. It is irrelevan whether they were unvacinated or had the vacine and were one of those for whom it didn't work / take.

BTW good for you keeping DC home to protect others.

silverfrog · 10/03/2012 11:29

it is not irrelevant to vaccine efficiency data, though, is it?

clearly the children were nt immune Hmm. it would be useful (some would say obligatory) to collect the data on whether they were immunised, don't you think?

I know if I were relying on official statistics as to whether my children were protected from measles (amongst other diseases) I would like to think the data was, erm, up to date and accurate?

CatherinaJTV · 10/03/2012 12:03

I totally agree with Silverfrog - you want accurate data about vaccine status in the patients and a vague "some had none, some had some" does not cut it for loads of reasons:

First of all, it is sloppy - measles is a reportable disease, there is a European plan to eradicate them by vaccination. Without precise data, you don't know where you are and which measures work.

Second, it leaves loads of room for biased interpretation. Vaccine-critical minded might think "the were probably all vaccinated and it did not work". Pro-vaccine minded will think "there you have it: all unvaccinated or undervaccinated". Other countries do it, Switzerland for example. And they can tell you things like "of 450 cases, 400 were unvaccinated, 30 had one MMR, 3 were vaccinated twice and 17 had no vaccination documentation". And they can tell you whether complications occur differentially in vaccinated and unvaccinated, etc etc.

This is just sloppy and that is unacceptable really.

sashh · 11/03/2012 04:03

For vaccine efficacy data you need to know not just if there has been a vaccine given, how many, which brand, batch number etc etc.

It is the statistician's job to collate that and it should be done at diagnosis, not on an HDU.

At the height of the MMR scare a lot of children in Britain were vaccinated with imported vacines that were not stored / transported properly (yes I know this is not the case for all but for a significant number). Acurate records were not always kept, sometimes no records were kept.

You cannot rely on stats for your child's immune status - only a blood test is accurate for an individual child.

analogue · 19/04/2012 16:20

Sorry to bring up an old thread (well not that old) but I was having a look at the HPA website today on the Liverpool Mealses outbreak.

I was surprised to see that over 60% of cases were in the unvaccinated. I presume this is 60% + a fraction or they would have certainly stated the higher figure.

60% in unvaccinated children (86/136 comfirmed cases).

HOWEVER I then went onto read that 26 of these were infants under 1 year old and therefore too young to be immunised. That means 60 'victims' weren't immunised, which means 50 victims were......

Wow, is all I have to say.

Rikalaily · 19/04/2012 17:04

My dd1 got German measles after getting her MMR, confirmed by swab.

Swipe left for the next trending thread