Apparently children who have had good nutrition would just 'shrug it off' if they contracted measles. Why don't they say that in the UK?

[bumbleymummy]

Article is here discussing the impact that poor nutrition has on children in developing countries.

Considering that the majority of children in the UK have no problem with good nutrition (fruit shoots and Greggs aside ) why aren't parents being reassured rather than terrified into having their children vaccinated with images of coffins plastered over the promotional material?

So you think scaremongering is acceptable for the sake of the greater good RT?

Some interesting facts about smoking from the US for you OddSock:

The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly one of every five deaths, each year in the United States.2,3
More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.2,4
Smoking causes an estimated 90% of all lung cancer deaths in men and 80% of all lung cancer deaths in women.1
An estimated 90% of all deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease are caused by smoking.1
Smoking and Increased Health Risks

Compared with nonsmokers, smoking is estimated to increase the risk of?

coronary heart disease by 2 to 4 times,1,5
stroke by 2 to 4 times,1,6
men developing lung cancer by 23 times,1
women developing lung cancer by 13 times,1 and
dying from chronic obstructive lung diseases (such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema) by 12 to 13 times.

Let's also not forget the impact that passive smoking has on people around those who voluntarily smoke.

but it is not a triage, Bumbley - you can actually advertise the dangers of smoking AND the dangers of measles. You sound a bit like my auntie, who did not want to give up her hair spray as long as there was still industrial use of CFCs

I hope Jake saw the links to the leaflets before flouncing. Doubt there'll be an apology forthcoming anyway!

How are we defining "well nourished"? I see well rounded toddlers all the time who live on a grain and sugar filled diet. They are not what I would call well nourished, although their calorie needs are met. In fact, that's true of many adults I know as well! "Well nourished" is assumed very often, but if you have dark circles under your eyes, are fatigued, have IBS symptoms or a myriad of other minor health health issues in any combination, I would say the clues are there to suggest you are not well nourished. This does not equate to starving, but if your gut flora isn't healthy, your immune system will be significantly compromised.

Catherina, I'm confused by your posts. How does your auntie not giving up hairspray relate to me thinking it is scaremongering to use coffins on vaccination leaflets?

it all comes back to the infamous (anti-vaccine) tautology

1. Measles is a harmless disease in healthy children
2. If your child suffered from measles, s/he wasn't healthy, because
3. Measles is a harmless disease in healthy children

that is ever so slightly insulting, but ever so handy for followers of a particular ideology (well, the child did not eat enough/too much of -insert whatever you fancy-)

adverts against smoking and adverts against measles are not mutually exclusive, that was my point. I don't doubt that smoking is more dangerous to the health of the smoker (on average) than measles is (on average) on the health of the patient. But both campaigns are possible side by side, just like aunt AND industry should give up CFCs

Very true Rescue. I would still say that the majority in the UK are still better nourished than most children in developing countries though. Wouldn't you?

Your stats on deaths from not bf are utter BS bumble.

Absolute nonsense.

And you have the gall to criticise others for scaremongering .

OP, you said you don't have a problem with vaccinations, just with the way the information/propoganda on them is delivered.

I don't have an issue with telling the harsh facts of what can potentially happen if you don't get your child immunised, i.e. worst case they can die.

I don't have an issue with telling the harsh facts about smoking either.

What would your wish be for information provided on measles? Would 'the bare facts' be that very few die, some live with serious complications, most get through it okay, and some simply shrug it off.

Would you find it acceptable to apply that to another preventable illness?

In saying 'some shrug off measles' that's minimising and damaging.

Death rates are relevant (when comparisng to smoking for instance), but more to the scale / targeting of any public health campaign.

Haven't caught up with the whole thread but the link provided for my benefit on the hospitalization associated with FF was a study in Manila. Not the UK.

I don't like propaganda either... I've looked at the link to the leaflet, it doesn't strike me as such. It describes itself as an 'infographic' - the information appears correct, presumably the graphics are to attract attention and perhaps for the benefit of non-English speakers - death is a possible consequence of measles so that coffin (just the one, not 'images of coffins plastered over...') was probably the least shocking option they could think of (what else could they use? skull and crossbones? tombstone?)

No Catherina, this is not about 'measles is harmless disease' . Tbh I'm a bit fed up with the way anyone who raises an objection to anything to do with the current vaccine schedule or how it is promoted being labelled as 'anti-vax' and having their opinions dismissed.

I think distorting facts and exaggerating risks and using shock tactics to frighten people into vaccinating is wrong. Those tactics would not be applied to encourage uptake for BF even though FF also poses a risk (yes, moreso in developing countries - just like measles!) and people would find it very offensive yet for some reason people don't seem too bothered about it in relation to vaccines.

Domestic - go and google. There are plenty of US studies showing that there are increased hospitalisations and a higher incidence of respiratory and gastro-intestinal illness and SIDS in babies who are FF compared to BF even in the US. Where do you think all the information about the 'benefits of BF' come from?

OddSock, yet you seemed to have a problem with giving the 'bare facts' about the risks of FF compared to BF. why?

But a man did sadly die in the recent measles outbreak in South Wales so a coffin is not necessarily scaremongering?

Why use it at all Grimma? Where else do we put coffins on leaflets about children's illnesses/diseases? I haven't seen it anywhere else. Have you?

The originally linked article was about how a child dies as a result of malnutrition every 15 seconds. It was in the news because a group of charities are lobbying G8 this week on this topic.

It made e point that this doesn't mean they are all starving to death, np many die because they are more susceptible to infectious diseases.

There was no mention of vaccination in the linked article. Possibly because measles was mentioned only once in passing as an example.

There was a longer discussion of the benefits of bf in saving lives in countries where there is severe malnutrition. And as I pointed out above, at least one of those countries does use "death" in its public information. As indeed does the group of lobbying charities.

I don't have a problem with the bare facts of FF compared to BF, I'm fairly sure that's included in SIDS information already, however given that it is thought to be a contributing factor (and the reasons are still not clear) rather than a direct causal link, that makes it different to measles.

Not from measles twice over. He had asthma and had been hospitalised for that the week prior to his death. He had also been vaccinated against measles although he still caught it and the doctor didn't recognise it (there could be a whole other thread about that!) and sent him home. Shocking and tragic for his whole family.

I think distorting facts and exaggerating risks and using shock tactics to frighten people into vaccinating is wrong

what facts have been distorted? The leaflet refers to 'possible consequences' - this is accurate. If it said 'probable' or 'likely' or 'common' that would have been a distortion - of course, it doesn't.

If the leaflet was as you described in the OP you might have a point but honestly, is one coffin graphic amid a whole sheet of other images 'shocking' or likely to make a parent 'terrified'?

Not in the UK though AS.

In fact can I change that to 'potential contributing factor, yet to be proven or really understood' rather than simply contributing factor.

That's good to know OddSocks. Although you did say that you didn't think coffins would be necessary earlier in the thread. Are you changing your position on that?

I havene't seen another coffin, but there is explicit mention of the 13 whooping cough deaths in some of the leaflets for that disease, and more general 'risk of dying' in others. I'm pretty sure that meningitis leaflets mention death, as do handouts for HPV immunisation.

Grimma, distorting facts wasn't only referring to that particular leaflet. I would attribute 'shock tactics' and scaremongering to that though. They don't seem to use such extreme tactics in any other area of public health.