Delayed vaccinations- how best to proceed from now?

[lou4791]

My DD had her 2 month vaccinations at 4 months of age, and her 3 month vaccinations 8 weeks later at the age of 6 months. Due in part to me wishing to space them out a bit, and to surgery cancellations she still has not had the third lot of vaccinations. An appointment has come through for them and I am not sure how to proceed.
She is now over 10 months old so is overdue her third lot of newborn vaccinations, and due her menC and Hib, and her MMR and pneumococcal very soon. Surely having all of these so close together is now unnecessary, especially as the Pneumococcal, Hib and MenC will effectively be doubled up now.
Will my most sensible option be to decline the third lot of newborn vaccinations and continue with the 12 month vaccinations as usual?

I hope someone with a deeper understanding of vaccines will be able to offer some advise.

Hmm, glad there's no mercury in vaccines. I always remember it from school as the stuff that peeled the Elizabethan's faces off when they used it in make-up. Would rather not have it injected into me or my children, thank you very much!

You need to learn about the difference between ethylmercury and methylmercury.

You're thinking about methylmercury.

What was in vaccines (still in some, mainly flu i think) is ethylmercury which has a proven track record of being very safe.

This is exactly what I was talking about welovecouscous and tabitha.

But on the NHS website they say there is no mercury (thiomersal) in Dtap/IPV.
Why do they say thiomersal, not ethymercury OR methylmercury??

Thimerosal = ethylmercury.

Maybe, elaine.

Here in the UK, it tends to be the case (you may know this) that few people have access to private medicine, including vaccinations. The majority just rely on the provisions made by the nhs. There is no kind of movement publicising the requirement to renew childhood vaccinations.

I'm not in one of the "high risk" categories, so no vaccines have ever been offered to me. I don't think I know of anyone else who has had adult boosters (excluding those given as a matter of course during pregnancy, or those in the high risk categories).

The note from our GP arrived today, so DD2 will be having her 12 month jabs next week. You can't just jump the queue, unless you go private, and that's not an option - especially as I have already paid for the nhs jabs out of my taxes.

Tabitha8
Anyway, I've yet to meet anyone who has avoided vaccinating a child out of stupidity.

Splendid.

of the "not stupid" people who avoided vaccinating their child, what reasons did they give?

Boots offers flu vaccines cheaply, it's where I had mine done when I lived in the uk (now my workplace offers them for free - cheaper than having staff off sick)

Hi welovecoucous, I think you are me!, my children, my choice, your children, your choice. I've never really understood this need to be rude about other people's choices.

ElaineBenes

I can respect other people's choices.
I can also say that they are based on stupidity and not on scientific evidence if that is the case.

This.
+1

See this paper for some interesting views on herd immunity and vaccine exemptions.

So, who is meant to pursue an action in tort and against whom?

The paper suggests that those who suffered the tort might have a class action against those who caused the loss of herd immunity. Note, it's a US paper, not UK.

But onemorechap (and Elaine, I guess) you know that there are doctors, barristers, all sorts of clever people who don't get vaccinated. You can say at a push that they are making a stupid decision, but it doesn't mean it's based on their stupidity, as they aren't stupid, or even that it's based on stupid reasons, as they may not be stupid reasons. In fact one reason for not vaccinating a child would be that most other children are vaccinated so why risk your own. That might be selfish but it's not stupid.

In fact the idea of vaccinating solely for herd immunity is quite stupid, as it involves self sacrifice. Unless there is a benefit to your own child which exceeds that cost then vaccinating for herd immunity would be a stupid thing to do.

Read tragedy of the commons for why relying on herd immunity is stupid....

Why is it stupid to rely on herd immunity - I thought some children had to.

Some.

Who have to.

Not doctors, barristers, all sorts of clever people who don't get vaccinated and those who think reason for not vaccinating a child would be that most other children are vaccinated so why risk your own

But it's stupid to rely on herd immunity. You said so. Why is it stupid for one lot of children and not stupid for another? Either it works, to rely on herd immunity, or it doesn't. Herd immunity doesn't differentiate between children who haven't been vaccinated for different reasons, ignoble or otherwise. So why is it stupid to rely on herd immunity? I mean you did say it was.

Well I've just got back from ferrying children around and while I'm happy you've had a more interesting evening than me I am disappointed not to have the explanation.

If you are allergic to the constituents of a vaccine, or you are severely immuno-compromised, your GP would recommend against vaccination.

Newborns are also not vaccinated.

They have little choice but to rely upon herd immunity.

I'm sure you really aren't as idiosyncratic as you represent your views to be...

Do you genuinely believe it is a generally sensible policy for parents to voluntarily not vaccinate their children?

Do you also believe that having a shower and eating fruit combats HIV?

In both cases, you are misguided at best and more likely wilfuly ignorant.

Seriously you said it's stupid to rely on herd immunity. What do you mean by that? Explain. Otherwise I won't believe you. Why would I?

And why are you talking about showers and eating fruit? Why is it so hard to explain your comment about herd immunity?

You're pretty definitive in your views there, calling people stupid, ignorant, whatever. Ok at flinging around the insults - now's the time to back yourself up with something that is a little more cogent.

Otherwise it just looks like stupid posturing.

I can't stand it when people on mumsnet just throw around these insults and generalisations about all sorts of things. I have never felt more pushed in the opposite direction than in these conversations about vaccinations. I've had this particular conversation before - I think it's counterproductive to be so insulting and I think it will never change anyone's mind.

"Seriously you said it's stupid to rely on herd immunity"

Very very simple, if everyone relied on herd immunity then there would be no herd immunity.

Is that it? Everybody knows that. But it's got nothing to do with relying on herd immunity as an individual. All you have to do is make sure uptake levels are good in your area and keep your ear open for outbreaks, and then go and get a vaccine if you're worried. What's stupid about that? We live in the real world, and not everybody's going to not vaccinate their children. You can pretty much rely on that.

Onemorechap's comment implied herd immunity doesn't work. I don't think he quite understood himself or he might have explained it. But now I can see why - he obviously meant something completely different. Perhaps that's why he struggled.

It works, brycie, but it's imperfect. For the vast majority, even with herd immunity, vaccination is less risky. But there is also the component that by not vaccinating you're reducing herd immunity for everyone (impacting upon the few who genuinely shouldn't be vaccinated and the few for whom the vaccine doesn't work) so it's not just stupid but also selfish (fair enough though, I'm also selfish with resoect to my kids but people prefer to deny it rather than recognize it for what it is).

I agree with you that doing a risk analysis isn't stupid in itself, we all do it, but the skewing of risks of vaccination up and risks of disease down is stupid (which is what I see happening). Just my opinion though.