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

Hugo, for around the fifth time on this thread alone - I am not 'going on about the measles vaccine being safer'. I am saying the singles measles vaccine is an alternative to the MMR if you are not happy about giving the MMR . If its the same strain then why would you try to argue that it is less safe or effective?

Thank you LaVolcan . At least some people in this thread are capable of reading! :)

La Volcan - bumblymummy keeps saying 'some people thing singles are safer' but won't say why.

When people ask her why she says nothing.

When people ask her if she thinks singles are safer than mmr she says nothing.

When people ask her if she has proof singles are safer than mmr she says nothing.

So it looks like bumbleymummy is going "Some people think MMR isn't safe (nudge nudge wink wink)". It looks sneaky.

Because, LaVolcan, you are suggesting that people be allowed to pick just to have measles and not bother with the rest.
Usually when people talk about opting for single vaccines, the assumption is that they will have all of them, because that's the vaccination programme.
Why should the NHS facilitate people opting out of the mass vaccination programme for mumps and rubella?

HugoBear bumblymummy has never said that singles are safer or even that some people think they are safer, so why ask her to prove a statement she never said?

No, I don't. I say some people don't want/trust/need the MMR - can you really not see the difference?

Why should the NHS facilitate people opting out of the mass vaccination programme for mumps and rubella?

Because they have already had the diseases, and don't see the point of a vaccination?

About rubella: we keep being told that we must give our children the MMR because they are not protected against serious diseases, but rubella itself is extremely mild. It is valid to wish to eliminate Congenital Rubella Syndome, absolutely, but why on earth not tell people that is the aim of the policy?

What you are not told is that the immunity conferred by the vaccine can wear off. We might have already eliminated CRS in the UK but what about women of childbearing age,(like my daughter, I could add), who travel to far flung places where the disease is still prevalent? They are never told to check their rubella immunity status - it could easily be offered at travel vaccination clinics, but it's not.

This lack of decent public health information really annoys me.

Noblegiraffe - I heard that when rubella was a single vaccine, lots of mums would refuse to get their baby boys done because rubella doesn't affect boys. But boys are carriers and would infect others, sometimes their own mothers when pregnant again and cause horrible birth defects.

LaVolcan, the suggestion that each vaccination be offered individually so that each individual can select which individual vaccination they care to take up based on personal preference and whatever disease is popular at the time is kind of missing the point of mass vaccination programmes.

Which is to vaccinate as much of the population as possible against a centrally agreed selection of diseases as efficiently as possible.

If the NHS had to start pandering to individual requests (and I'm saying request rather than medical need - being immune already is not a contraindication to having a jab again) then the whole programme starts to fall apart.

noblegiraffe Well, let's just say that the NHS used to 'pander to individual requests' and their vaccination programmes didn't fall apart as far as I recall. Why not offer vaccinations to the whole population then? Many of us will have had measles, as children, but why not immunise us again? (Cost I suppose.)

HugoBear I don't think boys were ever offered the single rubella vaccination. However, if there had been a public health awareness campaign saying that the aim of rubella vaccination was to eliminate Congenital Rubella Syndrome, then I think a lot of parents would have along with it.

But you won't say why they don't trust MMR, bumblymummy. You just leave it at that, hanging in the air...

And when you keep saying they don't need bits of the MMR (like the mumps bit), you suggest that having an 'unnecessary booster' is like developing a tolerance to painkillers that makes them less effective. Vaccines dont work like that.

Because if vaccines did work like painkillers and people got tolerant and they get less effective, then doctors/nurses etc would get ill from the people they treat all the time!!

LaVolcan, I've no idea about pandering to individual requests in the past, but the MMR is clearly a more efficient way of achieving the required outcome of triple vaccination so the fact that the decision was made that the MMR was the way forward is entirely understandable.

What do you mean why not offer vaccinations to the whole population? Are you suggesting attempting to immunise 60 million people in one go?

Be fair, Hugo.

Bumbley doesn't like to say anything clear, because then it could be examined for truth and accuracy, running the risk of being disproved.

Her method is to spread vague and unsubstantiated rumour with nothing behind it. If asked a direct question, she will typically ignore or evade it.

Don't make the mistake of thinking you are having an evidence-based debate with her.

noblegiraffe I once did a law course, and we were always pulled up on statements like clearly, obviously.

Sorry, LaVolcan, I thought it was clear that getting parents to make and keep one appointment for a jab for their child was more efficient than trying to get them to make and keep three.

Is it not obvious?

Well, I've made an appt to get my DC's vaccinated with MMR - do you think I should ask/ they would offer to give it to me as well ?
Though I may have had measles as a child, I'm not sure.
Doesn't seem parents are offered it though - only children ?

Depending on when you were born you should have either had measles (born before 1970), had the single measles vaccine (introduced 1968) or the MMR (introduced 1988). Can you ask your parents?

I can try NG but I have a couple of sibs and my mother is pretty confused as to who had what - though I know we all had chicken pox together one half-term hol ! I'm ancient - I think having had measles in childhood may be the most likely possibility ? But yes, thanks, I'll try asking her before going to the appointment and see what she says.

Surely the point is that for the huge, vast majority of the population MMR is safe.
If all of those people get their MMRs, then those who can't for medical reasons (previous bad reaction, family genetics, etc) then should be at far less risk of measles, children in the womb protected from rubella, because the illnesses will hardly circulate and so there is minimal risk of catching them. Community immunity as I heard it described yesterday.
Ergo, no need for single measles vaccine which does lead to a pick and mix mentality whereby individual families might decide not to bother with mumps as their children are girls, for instance.
I agree that there should be more information for girls (perhaps when getting their HPV at 13) that the rubella immunity does wear off and they might wish to be cautious if trying to conceive/travelling abroad. But I had my rubella at 14 or so, and there was even more concern among medics about that wearing off (I had one chase me down the road after mentioning I might be ttc -- she suggested I should check rubella status first) as there wasn't the herd immunity you (should) get from the current MMR.

Hugo, I don't leave it 'hanging in the air' - you'd have to ask people themselves why they don't trust the MMR (if that's their reason). I have given a few examples on this thread eg. If they/another child has had a previous reaction to the MMR. I thought you said you'd read the thread?

I'm not sure where you think I've compared unnecessary boosters to building up tolerance to painkillers. More made up accusations? this is why it is important to read what people are actually writing - it saves a lot of jumping to conclusions and going around in circles.

bumbley, I complained about that yesterday and s/he just went off and started doing it to someone else (you). Either Helen Flannagan is now debating on Mumsnet or some people are being deliberately disingenuous. I suspect the latter in this case.

But what evidence is there that MMR wears off later than single vaccines?

that was to gnushoes

Bumbley,
It does appear to be true that a lot of people decided not to get the MMR in the aftermath of the Wakefield paper and subsequent media health scare. Not because a previous child had a reaction, for example. Lots of people did not vaccinate because they believed Wakefield, and the press scaremongering linking the MMR to ASD. Or are you denying this?
These people therefore didn't/haven't/still will not accept the MMR based on a retracted paper, and on a premise (ASD-MMR link) which has been totally refuted by all credible recent studies.

Cheers

Quote: which has been totally refuted by all credible recent studies.

Have you got any examples (with emphasis on the credible)?