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

Teenagers should be re vaccinated.

It would be great if we could eradicate these diseases completely, but we can't because of other countries.

Has the Gareth Williams investigation been completed then? I didn't know a report had been published. Where can I see it?

bumbley,
Let's look at those figures, I provide data from almost eleven thousand cases of measles with known vaccination status. You say "Well, Gareth Williams wasn't diagnosed". Do you not think you can do a little bit better than that? I am pretty certain his family would not be happy with you using his untimely death in this manner, and I find it pretty distasteful.
Cheers.
I have figures from an outbreak in Lyons (2010-2011 this time), again broken down into vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals too?
Oh, tell you what I will link to them:
www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/EE/V17N36/Vanhem_tab.jpg
Percentage of those with known vaccination status contacting measles who were fully vaccinated? About 4% (11/287 in this case).

Right - so when the MMR was brought in, only 1 dose was needed, then 2 and now we should introduce a third because the mumps component wanes more quickly and isn't as effective as the other two? Great.

PJ< thats just what has been reported in the news so far.

Well, the single mumps vaccine would do, but I understand there isn't one available.

I personally wouldn't decide who it is medically contra-indicated for, I would expect a medical professional to do that.

What I don't understand is if both options are equally safe, as you say, why the need for the option?

I completely agree that singles should be available if there is a genuine reason to suspect the combined vac presents a danger which is not present in the single option.

But why shoild the singles be available to all. In order to justify the extra expense and extra worry offering an alternative would create there would surely need to be evidence that offering the choice is warranted.

Vague doubts isn't enough for me. If I'm going to decide on something so important I need to see the facts from both sides.

I've seen the arguments and evidence for the MMR but in order to form a well-rounded opinion I need to see the arguments and evidence against.

Magdalen, let me get this straight- it's ok to plaster photos of the poor man all over the papers because he had measles when he died but it's not ok to mention that he had been vaccinated and that the doctor didn't diagnose measles?

How exactly do you expect me to produce figures for all unreported cases in vaccinated people? Do you think the doctors keep note of them or something? The only reason we know that it happened in this case was because they diagnosed it after he died. Do you really think this is the only time that a diagnosis in a vaccinated person has been missed? Does it not concern you that the figures could be skewed?

Randall, how do you expect them to do that?

Using their medical knowledge, that's what they are there for.

Anyway, this is just going round in circles. I was simply asking a question. If you'd prefer not to answer then just say so, (you're certainly not compelled to answer, I'm just some random on the Internet), but so far this is a massive waste of time for both of us.

Bumbley, in the absence of an investigation into the death of this poor man, which bits of "news" are you going to spread?

Are you going to mention his weight and other health status?

I don't know if he was immunised; I don't know if he died of measles. Neither do you.

Randall, I've tried to answer you - sorry if its not what you're looking for. The point I'm making is that they should be available to all because there's no way to define who should be eligible for them. How would you say, 'ok, you can have it but you can't' - many people only find out that they shouldn't have had the vaccine when they react to it!

Most people would probably still opt for the MMR - they are hsppy with safety/effectiveness studies - they find it more convenient etc. just because the single is available doesn't mean that they would chose to have it. However, for those who don't want/trust/can't have the MMR there would be the option of the single with no questions asked.

PJ, I didn't say he died from measles - no one knows that yet and no one has reported it. It has been reported that he was vaccinated, that he had been in hospital for his asthma and that he had been seen by an OOH doctor the night before he died. I don't need to 'spread' the news. It's plastered all over the papers for anyone to read.

Don't start trying to be all sanctimonious about it - you were on a thread that was talking about this for days. You didn't have any problem with that.

Bumbley, if someone is going to react to the MMR, then what makes you think they won't react to the singles? Given that they're the same vaccines?

Nothing sanctimonious there

But there is criticism of you for selectively using unconfirmed snippets.

You appear to be using the death of this unfortunate man to try to make some kind of a point.

With all due respect Bumbley you haven't answered my question at all.

I am aware there are people who don't want/trust the MMR. My question was why don't they want/trust it.

It's not a big issued ifyou'd rather not answer, you don't have to justify your choices to anyone but yourself. You just seemed very vociferous in your argument so I got the impression you would be happy to share your research.

No problem, I'm off to bed now anyway so I'll sign off.

Well it's not he sane vaccine is it? Certain ones may have the same strain hug it also has two other live viruses in there as well - that may very well make a difference to some people. The same way as some people in your Lemsip example may be absolutely fine taking paracetemol but are allergic to Lemsip.

That sounded a bit arsey reading it back. What I meant is no one has to justify their choices except to themselves.not that I think either choice is right or wrong iyswim.

You're still being sanctimonious PJ. :)

I did answer that Randall - I said it would have to ask them. People have many different reasons for it - maybe a previous child/they themselves have reacted badly, maybe they are already immune to one or more of the diseases and just want to boost the one they aren't immune to...

I don't know what type of research you expect me to start quoting tbh because people's reasons for choosing singles vary.

You didn't sound that arsey - just a bit good night

So, bumbley, you're suggesting that the NHS provide a more costly and less effective (due to missed vaccinations) vaccination schedule option because you have a vague notion that it might cause some people some problems to have the three viruses in one go?

I was suggesting a reason why it might cause certain people problems. Why can you accept that certain people may react badly to a combination of certain ingredients (Lemsip) but be fine with one of them(paracetemol) but not accept that the combinations of 3 vaccines in 1 may cause some people problems?

We'll just have to agree to differ, BM. You think I'm sanctimonious, and I think you're an evasive flanneler

If someone reacts to the paracetamol in lemsip then why would giving them paracetamol on its own be any less of an issue?

You're suggesting that someone who doesn't trust Lemsip should take a paracetamol, an aspirin and a swig of coffee instead. How does that make sense?

Sanctimonious is one of many things PJ...believe me! :)