Please or to access all these features

General health

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

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:
AmberLeaf · 19/04/2012 17:37

Thats interesting analogue.

So does that mean the vaccines dont work? is it that simple?

analogue · 19/04/2012 17:52

I don't know Amber Leaf (love the name btw), but they are the figures from the HPA themselves. It was semi-obscured by including infants, but even accounting for those, it's still quite a statistic when you consider the risk-benefit analysis of MMR!

AmberLeaf · 19/04/2012 18:26

Thanks Smile

Im surprised, I was expecting it to be mainly unvaccinated or < 1 yr olds.

Actually im not that surprised as I know of anecdotally people whos children have had Rubella despite having MMR, but just bit surprised to see it all 'official'

CatherinaJTV · 19/04/2012 20:14

where do you see the measles report with the percentages? Cannot find anything more recent than late March on HPA website..

analogue · 19/04/2012 20:24

It's here regarding www.hpa.org.uk/hpr/news/default.htm#msls
The majority of cases with onset in February and March were diagnosed in the North West region where there is an on-going outbreak (see table) [1, 2]. More than 60% (86/136) of the cases in the North West are in unvaccinated children under 10 years, of which 26 are infants less than a year of age, and the genotype is B3.

CatherinaJTV · 19/04/2012 20:34

Their woolly writing drives me up the bend. It could absolutely be that 100% of patients were unvaccinated, but only 60% were under 10 years old (why that arbitrary cut off age?), or 40% were vaccinated (independent of age), or some of the 40% were vaccinated and for some the vaccine status wasn't known, the possibilities are endless.... I think I'll write to them and ask... Thanks for the link!

CaptainVonTrapp · 20/04/2012 17:05

40% of the confirmed cases were fully vaccinated?? Shock

CatherinaJTV · 20/04/2012 21:18

NO 60% of the cases were under 10 and unvaccinated. We do not know anything about the other 40.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread