Reactions to MMR - how long do they last?

[MrsMoppetMama]

My DD (13 months) had her MMR 11 days ago, she had a bad reaction after about 3 days (high temp and trouble breathing) and we took her to urgent care center. Although this has now passed, she seems to be really out of sorts and has stopped sleeping through. Her normal routine was brilliant as she went down from about 7 - 7. Now she is waking every two hours and is very unhappy. Is this normal? is this because of her MMR or is it just a phase? She has also stopped taking her bottle before bed, is it likely that she has weaned herself? Help! It's been pretty easy going with her up to now so a bit stressed by all this.

Halvorsen's ref:
Chamberlain
Poliomyelitis vaccination: BMJ 1987; 295: 158-9
I feel as though I'm being interrogated. I'm merely reading a book written by someone else.

As for whether or not you can easily access the BMJ, how should I know?

Are you asking me my belief as to the numbers involved, or the facts?

Oh that's probably where I read it originally Tabitha

Piglet - it's usually suggested to the most effective strategy is to use OPV in areas where there are polio outbreaks and IPV in areas where there is no circulating polio. The UK was late to switch to IPV compared to places such as the States. DS1 for example received OPV, whereas I think had we been in the States at the time he would have received IPV.

a brief summary. If you want further details the link provides more information.

The UK switched to IPV in 2004. Very late compared to some countries.

Yes, I was asking for your belief.

Thanks, I was particularly interested in the introductory points from the two documents

"IPV is not recommended for routine use in polio-endemic countries or in developing countries at risk of poliovirus importations. In these countries, oral polio vaccines ? either trivalent, bivalent or monovalent, depending on local epidemiology ? are used."

and

"So although the widespread use of OPV is being promoted vigorously in countries in which polio is, or was until recently, endemic, its continued use is being questioned in countries where indigenous polio has disappeared, just as with the smallpox vaccine in the 1970s. Criteria have been drawn up, which countries considering the change should fulfil and include the absence of indigenous poliomyelitis for at least five years and reliable vaccine coverage above 90%"

I have no argument with that.

when you originally raised the matter of Polio on this thread, Tabitha8
The live polio vaccine was a cause of polio in some
I got the idea that you were against the use of OPV, which has done so much to eradicate this terrible disease from almost the entire face of the earth; or thought that it was, on balance, a negative rather than a positive influence on the world's heath.

I now see your statement is restricted to a particular country in a particular timeframe.

I now gather that you are not opposed to the use of OPV in eradicating the disease in the few remaining places where it is still endemic.

Neither have I.

Piglet I was trying to give examples of why I lost faith in the vaccination programme and felt that I could not trust it. That was all I was trying to do.

But if OPV, for example, when used in a community where Polio remains endemic, infected one persons but saved, say, a thousand, would you oppose its use?

Would you if you were that one person?

There are two answers to that.

1. If I had, or hoped to have, children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, nephews and neices, I would want them to be saved the terrible scourge of Polio. Remember that I am living in an area where it is still endemic, and babies and children are getting infected, and will continue to get infected, until the disease is wiped out.

2. If I am living in an area where Polio remains endemic, and I have no pre-existing immunity for some reason, I accept that I am likely to pick up the disease from the wild sooner or later. Taking the vaccine reduced my chances of doing that, and reduced my chances of suffering the disease, but it was not a 100% guarantee of safety. I am sad that I was one of the unlucky ones. Was there an alternative I could have taken that would have given me a better chance? No.

In either case, taking the OPV was the sensible choice.

But if you knew you'd be that one person? If you could see into the future, what then?

How about you?

Would you oppose the OPV so that your children grandchildren etc continue to be exposed to the disease?

Would you refuse the OPV for yourself knowing that you would continue to be exposed to risk from infection in the wild?

If I knew I'd be the one person paralysed by the vaccine, of course I wouldn't have it. The other 999 could take their own chances, couldn't they? I wouldn't make it compulsory. I would give them all the information they needed to make their own decision, just as I'm able to do.

This is why there is no point trying to reason with the likes of Tabitha. I mean! There's no logic to the statement that one person getting the disease verses 999 not getting the disease is a good reason not to vaccinate. If I was opposed to vaccinations the way some of the more reasonable people on this thread are, I would be groaning into my coffee at those sorts of comments.

Mental note: 1/ anti-vaxers think no risk is too little.
Note 2/ they think pro-vaxers = compulsory vaccinations

Unlike Tabitha, if I knew that by accepting the vaccine into my village I could protect my children and grandchildren from this awful disease, I would sacrifice myself. Who wouldn't?

Thread has clearly moved on, but I'd like to answer a few things:

PigletJohn - I said "It is a terrible and irreversible outcome, and therefore, the risk is significant even if the probability is very small small."
... to which you replied "Just to check, are you calculating this based on the belief that MMR is known to cause autism? Which country published the medical test results showing this?"

This is about perceived risk. There are quite a few Game Theory papers out there that show through mathematical analysis that it is completely rational for parents to refuse vaccination when perceived risk is higher than perceived benefit. My point above was that this risk is of course very high and is unlikely to be under perceived benefit of mild diseases like rubella when a possible outcome seems to be autism, which is a terrible and irreversible outcome.

Note that probability of an outcome is not risk. Risk is calculated as below:

Risk = probability x how bad or good that outcome would be

ex: I have a 50% chance of tripping when walking down this road but I don't see it as a risky place to walk because the worst I would get is a bloody knee. But I have a 1% chance of falling down the edge of an abyss but I see this as very risky because if I fall I will die.

This is why many parents who have thought about MMR and followed the controversy have refused to give it to their DC. Not because they are idiots, but because in their risk assessment, however small the probability of triggering autism in their babies might be, it is not a risk worth taking, especially when the vaccine protects them from standard childhood diseases one of which is very mild, and not The Plague.

LeBFG, washing your hands is more effective at preventing flu than the flu vaccine.

PigletJohn, you probably know more than 2 polio survivors considering that over 95% of cases are asymptomatic or have mild flu symptoms. (some sources quote 99%)

Just catching up on earlier posts - my last post was directed at comments made yesterday.

mild flu-like* symptoms

Piglet, if you are living in an area where polio is endemic then you are at risk of contracting polio from the OPV. Is it India that has been declared 'polio-free' despite all the cases caused by the OPV?

Cote

Yes I do know how to assess risk which is why I asked my question. Apparently this possibility did not occur to you.

For example if you are assessing the Severity of the outcome as, say, 100 (certain and immediate death), you then need next to know what Probability you are going to assign.

If the event has, in all scientific tests carried out throughout the world, to be 100% certain as a direct result of the action you propose, you might assign it a Probability rating of 100. So in your Risk table, you might give this one a value of (100 x 100=) 10,000

Howver, if the event has, in all scientific tests carried out throughout the world, shown a zero causitive connection with the action you propose, you might assign it a Probability rating of 0. So in your Risk table, you might give this one a value of (100 x 0=) 0

Hence my question.

Would you like to answer my question?

bumbleymummy
Piglet, if you are living in an area where polio is endemic then you are at risk of contracting polio from the OPV. ?

I don't understand what you mean. Can you try to express it in different words please.

Cote. In your paper, the people vaccinating or not do so based on perceived risk i.e. perception of vaccine damage, not actual risk. bearing in mind that vaccination decisions are strongly influenced by incorrect risk perception. The authors are not saying the reaction is rational...they are simply showing what happens in a population based on some simple starting rules of individuals' behaviour.

After Wakefield's paper, the probability of vaccine damage stayed the same, but people's risk perception was altered (instead of a fever, the consequence was more terrible) so people stopped vaccinating. After the story was debunked, you would expect people to alter their risk perception a second time and start vaccinating again. But unfortunately, and irrationally, this does not happen as quickly as one would think. Vaccinations start increasing again but much more slowly than they initally fell.

I also think the perceived probability of vaccine damage bacomes inflated in a vaccine scare. And in addition, people behave as their neighbour does - "if others stop vaccinating the risk must be really high"

Plus I love "however small the probability of triggering autism in their babies might be, it is not a risk worth taking" what, even if the probability is zero? As I said earlier, for anti-vaxers, no risk is too small.

Bumbley: I personally would love to see you giving hand washing demonstrations in areas hit by measles. Goddamit, throw away all those pesky vaccines! If only we knew that we could eliminate contagious diseases with a few simple hygiene rules!

Bumbley Flu viruses are spread mainly by droplets made when people with flu cough, sneeze or talk.