MMR DROP IN CLINICS ACROSS WALES TOMORROW - please get yours

[Mosschops30]

You can turn up to various venues
Ystrad Mynach Hospital
Belle Vue Surgery Newport
Children's Centre, CRI
Children's Centre, llandough

Don't worry if you're not sure If your dc has had booster, you can still attend.

Please protect all our children

Bubbly - I think the poster is asking if singles are safer than MMR - you've not compared the two, only saying that singles are considere safe and effective' (sic).

what about stats comparing MMR to singles?

LadyGa
"Vaccination coverage would be higher if single vax were offered."
Not according to the children's immunisation clinic - who are now touting for business in wales - they say
"The majority of parents who have rejected the MMR option , for whatever reason, have also not opted for the single vaccine"

so ladygranula where are your facts for higher coverage if singles were offered?

Now there is data showing the uptake of MMR declining following Mr Wakefield's scare stories and and increase in uptake when he was struck off

see BBC
"That paper, and subsequent media coverage, led to immunisation rates plummeting. From a high of 92% across the UK in 1995-6, it fell to an average of 80% in 2003-4.

For children in England reaching their second birthday it rose to 91.2% in 2011-12, but that is still below the World Health Organization target of at least 95%."

Oh my word, how patronising! I shall search the BBC website for such statistics!

It is a simple mathmatical equation,which I am happy to draw out for you here:

a + b = c
a + 0 = a

Your lovely BBC numbers bear no relevance at all to the question in hand, which is what is the basis for offering single vaccines. The basis is to increase immunisation coverage.

Yes, you can educate, bully, condescend, patronise and even, in some cases, win round. But for everyone who doesn't respond, there is a chance they would be amenable to the single option.

And you say:
Not according to the children's immunisation clinic - who are now touting for business in wales - they say
"The majority of parents who have rejected the MMR option , for whatever reason, have also not opted for the single vaccine"

But surely, you aren't using these guys to support your flawed assumptions now? Wow

Why does it need to be safer/more effective? Why can't it just be the same?

Perhaps they aren't opting for the single vaccine because they can't afford to pay for it privately?

Bumbly, it's not a choice between paracetamol and ibuprofen, it's a choice between the MMR and the M + M + R. The same stuff, except in a faffier format that requires extra doctors appointments. Like saying you want Lemsip but you'll have the paracetamol bit now, the caffeine tomorrow and the aspirin the day after. For no good reason other than you don't fancy the Lemsip all at once, if you are offering the 'choice' without medical reason.

That doesn't strike me as a good use of NHS resources. So yes, the singles need to be better than just the same as the MMR if you want them offered.

Where on earth have I been rude or patronising? I asked a question, nothing more. I stated that I wasn't interested in opinions, only the reasons for the opinion.

Why would anyone base their opinion purely on someone else's opinion? I don't believe you have based your views on purely hearsay so I was asking what information you have used.

I also stated several times that I really am genuinely interested. I honestly don't see the problem.

You'll also notice that I haven't once stated what my opinion is. How do you know I even have an opinion? Maybe I am one of the parents who isn't sure so wants all the information so I can make an informed choice for myself.

Resorting to calling people names and passive aggressive smileys is not something I would chose to do.

If you just want to protect against measles (which is what we're discussing on this thread) then it's just the same. In your analogy, if the paracetemol does the job then why the caffeine and the aspirin are just extras.why would you take them if you didn't need them right away?

Randal, you are not the only person on this thread - I was replying to Jo.

Wrt my opinions/views. I've said that its a suitable alternative to protect against measles. You can check up on the Rouvax studies for safety/effectiveness yourself if you like.

So what do you make of the doctors who tell parents who are concerned about a vaccine reaction that it was a coincidence, nothing to do with the vaccine and that they should carry on regardless?

It could be true, temporal association of a symptom with a vaccine isn't the same thing as a vaccine causing the symptom. My DD developed a worrying issue the day before she received her first set of jabs. If she had developed it after the jabs, only a day later, I'd have certainly worried that the jabs were the cause.

And some reactions aren't enough to contraindicate a booster dose of the vaccine, even if they were caused by the vaccine.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 18:48:58
What facts/figures/data do you want? Safety studies on singles measles vaccine have been done

Oh good. How does it compare ?

I don't understand people who say they don't want the other parts of the MMR for their kids. I mean, totally avoidable unpleasant illnesses could be protected against. There are a good couple of hundred cases of mumps across the UK every week. Perhaps their parents don't mind seeing their DC in extreme discomfort? Perhaps they can afford to take the time off work to care for them? I'd rather not.

But if you were willing to make that sacrifice of a week off work Noble, and your child caught wild mumps, they would then have the advantage of lifelong immunity, unlike that conferred by vaccines.

I see no reason to vaccinate against non-dangerous childhood diseases at all, especially when they stack up problems for those of university age who suddenly find themselves vulnerable. Certainly a week off work is not a good reason for many parents.

So, the single vaccine is safe for the majority of people.

The combined vaccine is safe for the majority of people.

What is the reason to make both available to all, rather than just to those who are medically contra-indicated to one or the other? That really is my only question.

So, what is the evidence that singles are safer than combined for the average person? What facts are there to validate people's fears regarding the MMR specifically? Should we be allaying those fears or are they entirely justified?

Without seeing the basis for an opinion how can anyone agree or disagree with it?

Mumps can cause male infertility. The safety of the vaccine itself aside, I personally see that as a good reason to vaccinate.

More vaccines is the way forward then, if immunity waning is an issue.

Mumps reinfection can occur if you have wild mumps, btw.

Bumblymummy

• why do you think the measles bit of the MMR is different to the single vaccines that you cant get in a single vaccine??

I asked this before and didnt get an answer so I turned internet detective and looked around and found that the UK MMR is called Priorix and the measles bit is the Schwartz strain.
www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/2054

I then did some looking to see what strains are used in the single vaccine and the first page I found said that the single vaccine in France that you want to import for people is also the Schwartz strain!!
www.drjohnoakley.co.uk/VaccineFAQ.aspx#Q2

I also found this link on a website that doesn't like MMR and links to doctors who will give single vaccines instead of MMR, and the only one that says exactly what they give is one in Manchester that gives the same singles as what makes up the MMR for £130 each!!
www.jabs.org.uk/pages/single.asp

So it seems to me that with singles you get the same coverage and run the same risk and pay nearly £400 for no sensible reason

Or just let kids catch it when they're in the relatively safe age group to do so! More vaccines? For something that is innocuous in children?

Randall - that's fine. Choice is good and I totally respect that.

Noble - Yes reinfection can occur in very rare cases. Most people get lifelong immunity from wild mumps.

But the child can pass it to an adult. I did, I passed it on to my dad. He was horrendously ill.

So looking at the bigger picture, and ignoring debate regarding the safety of specific vaccines, yes, I do think that if mumps can be vaccinated against it should be.

Mass vaccination reduces the incidence overall and protects those who haven't been or can't be immunised. Look at rubella, nearly eradicated. How many babies has that saved?

My DD being vaccinated against mumps protects her brother and her dad. What's not to like?

As an aside to the current topic of conversation, could anyone kindly point me to the figures showing the split between vaccinated and unvaccinated in the current outbreak? They must be published somewhere but I cannot for the life of me find them.

I am guessing that in terms of persuading parents to opt for the MMR, these stats are going to be very effective if they paint the 'right' picture.

Ladygran,
I haven't seen any figures published either. It may take a while to get the details, and the outbreak isn't over yet, sadly (and they probably would rather report once they have the correct figures and full analysis). If you want some recent data from Europe, here you go...
Measles cases across Europe 2006-2007:

link www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19131097

There were, in total, 12,132 cases of measles.
Regarding the vaccination status of those catching measles, where it was known (which is was in 90% of the cases):
In 2006 94% were either unvaccinated (77%) or incompletely vaccinated (17%).
In 2007 97% were either unvaccinated (87%) or incompletely vaccinated (10%).
So fully vaccinated individuals accounted for 6% of cases in 2006, and 3% of cases in 2007.

Obviously I don't know what the figures will be for Wales, yet. I'll be interested to see.
Cheers.

noble, see the difference - reaction to lemsip - don't continue to recommend. Reaction to vaccine - probably not anything to do with the vaccine, carry on. why?

Randall, how do you determine who it is medically contraindicated for? Again, why does it have to be safer? Why not just as safe? Also, according to the HPA, there is no firm evidence that mumps causes sterility. WRT you passing it on to your Dad, wouldn't it have been better if he could have vaccinated himself against it because he was at an age where it could be more of a risk?

noble, what about all the teenagers whose immunity to mumps has now waned?

How many cases of measles in vaccinated people were not recorded though. Gareth Williams was seen by an OOH doctor the night before he died and not diagnosed.

Hugo, yes, I knew the Schwartz strain was in the Rouvax vaccine. I think there is also an Edmonston strain MMR available in the UK as well as Priorix. I hope your info has reassured you about the safety/effectiveness of the single vaccine.