Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

MMR - February

38 replies

robinw · 11/02/2002 18:17

message withdrawn

OP posts:
robinw · 12/02/2002 07:01

message withdrawn

OP posts:
Tigger2 · 12/02/2002 10:04

One of our Scottish Parliament Ministers has announced last week that she will have her child (yet unborn)given the MMR jab, not sure if it was Susan Deakin or Wendy Alexander.

Our PLaygroup asks what Vaccinations have been given, don't know of any that haven't been given, and I'm not sure on how other facilities stand on non vaccination.

SueDonim · 12/02/2002 11:14

Susan Deacon. She was my son's boss until she resigned from the Cabinet.

lulu40 · 12/02/2002 14:12

Having briefly reading this thread and previous one can somebody please explain why single jabs are supposed to be a better option? My ds had his MMR even though he had already had measles at 10 months (he is 4 now). I am so glad I didnt know much about the complications with measles as he woke up with a rash, doctor confirmed measles I took a week off work with him and that was it in actual fact didnt seem to bother him at all. I am trying for my second now and will almost certainly have the MMR again but would like to know more about why people opt for single jabs - anyone?

Marina · 12/02/2002 14:33

Lulu40, we opted for single jabs for the following reasons:

Concerns about the strain of mumps vaccine used in the MMR at the time (this has now been changed, I believe)

Question mark, in our opinion, about immunising our son against all three illnesses at once

Direct Health 2000, one of the first UK clinics to offer single jabs, was a 5 minute bus ride away, so it was easy for us to take this decision

This has been such a heated argument, I don't want to stir things up at all, so I'll just say that this was our choice, reached after considerable thought and discussion with other parents who coincidentally were also health professionals. I don't think we would have gone the no-immunisation route, and he has had all his other shots with no side-effects.

martina · 12/02/2002 14:43

Reading some of the comments posted here I've been getting more and more upset. Our daughter had quite a bad reaction to the whooping cough vaccine, including convulsions. Watching her little body shake and twitch uncontrollably was one of the worst things we have ever experienced, and its an image we will never forget. Naturally, we're concerned about the effects any other vaccines, such as the MMR, might have on her. Are we really just selfish parents for not having her vaccinated against measles etc.?
I am particularly annoyed at someone's suggestion not to allow children to attend nursery unless they're vaccinated.

Enid · 12/02/2002 15:09

martina, no you aren't selfish parents. If your daughter has had such a violent reaction to the dip jab I doubt your HV would recommend that you have any more vaccinations anyway, and at least that you have the single jabs for MMR. I am pro-vaccination but only for healthy children who have no history of these kinds of reactions.

Sorry, cowardly damage limitation here as i have seen how these things spiral out of control...can i just add that I was INTERESTED only about the nursery issue, NOT that I would be in favour of it.

callie · 12/02/2002 16:17

Martina! Sorry if I annoyed you when suggesting that children be kept from nursery if not immunised. I didn't mean it to sound so black and white. Obviuosly there are children who can't be immunised for medical reasons and they should definitly not be prevented from going any where.
Iam not sure myself how the plan would work or if is a good idea. Just think it gives comfort to the mums of young babies who share nurserys with older children if they can be confident thsat those who CAN be are fully immunised.

Croppy · 12/02/2002 16:34

Martina, it is precisely because of children such as yours that in my view, it is the responsibility of the rest of us to have our children immunised in order to prevent the spread of disease. Reactions to vaccines such as you describe are mercifully fairly unusual but nonetheless well documented. Of course you are not selfish - you have a very valid reason not to get your child vaccinated.

robinw · 12/02/2002 22:08

message withdrawn

OP posts:
jessi · 12/02/2002 22:40

Lulu 40, we opted for the single jabs because my son reacted quite badly to the immunistations when he was a baby and I was concerned that the MMR all at once might be too much for him. Also we have a family memeber with autism and another distant relative with Aspergers so we weren't prepared to take any risks. Having said that, we were still anxious about even the single jabs ( and he did react to 2 of them). In my humble opinion I think that the only real reason people should get their kids vaccinated singularly is because of previous reactions and/or a family link to autism. I wouldn't have hesitated about him having the MMR if those factors weren't involved for us.

SueW · 12/02/2002 23:30

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at OP's request.

SueDonim · 13/02/2002 01:10

The Torygraph on Tues said that vaccination will not be made compulsory and the Independant has this article about nurserys.
---

Nurseries to warn parents of MMR rate
By Chris Gray
12 February 2002
Nursery schools will be told this week to warn parents when the number of children in their care with the MMR vaccination falls below recommended levels.

The National Day Nurseries Association (NNDA) will issue new guidelines to members asking them to alert parents to give them the option of taking their child out of the nursery.

The move comes after a member of the British Medical Association's GP committee called for children who have not had the triple injection to be barred from nursery schools. Dr Mustafa Kapasi, a GP in Greenock, Strathclyde, said parents should have to produce vaccination certificates before their children were enrolled.

"What we don't want is some kids getting measles or diphtheria and affecting the education of other children in those schools because their nursery may be closed, so I think it is not unfair to impose these targets on parents," Dr Kapasi said.

But Karen Walker, the strategic director of the NNDA, said excluding children from nurseries because they had not had MMR could be illegal under equal opportunities law. Many children could not have vaccinations because of allergies or family medical history and it would be unfair to deny them a nursery place, she said.

Instead, the association will advise nurseries later this week to warn parents when the number of children with vaccinations fell below 95 per cent, the level necessary to preserve "herd immunity" and prevent an outbreak. Ms Walker said: "We have had parents asking to know which children in the nursery have not been vaccinated. We will not say that, but we are telling nurseries that if levels fall below recommended levels they need to tell parents.

"That then gives parents the opportunity to decide if they want to take their child out of the nursery school."

Meanwhile, Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, will start a publicity campaign this week to persuade every parent that MMR is safe and does not carry a risk of autism. He will send an open letter to clinics and hospitals challenging Dr Andrew Wakefield's suggestion of a link with autism.

"If I could sit down with every parent in this country and go over their concerns and explain it, I am convinced that I could reassure them not just of the overwhelming positive safety record of MMR vaccine but also the risks associated with a single vaccine which greatly increases the risk of children contracting these diseases," Sir Liam said.

But Roger Hayward, chairman of the Public Relations Standards Council, warned that the campaign "simply won't work" because parents would think the Government had failed to convince the media of its case. "There is a lot of evidence that advertising used in situations like this is actually counter-productive and worsens the situation rather than improving it," he said.

robinw · 13/02/2002 06:47

message withdrawn

OP posts:
Marina · 13/02/2002 09:50

I had a letter from our son's nursery last night asking for a complete update of all children's immunisation records, presumably on the back of what SueDonim posted from the press.
Martina, that must have been distressing for you. A friend's little boy developed similar upsetting reactions to his first lot of shots - but he had the rest of his in hospital under medical supervision as a precaution and didn't have any more problems. Hope the same solution is possible for you.

Alibubbles · 13/02/2002 10:01

I don't necessarily agree that nursereies should require that children be vaccinated as a conditio of attendance. How many of the teachers and nursery nurses are fully immunised? After all Mumps measles and Rubella re not just childish illnesses, adults can get them too. They could get them and pass them to the children, just as easily as child to child contact.

A lot of people find that they are not Rubella immune until they go to antenatal clinics, they're tested and find it's too late to be immunsied and then spend the next nine months worrying that they will come into contact with it.

If I was asked to provide evidence or confirm that my children were immunised (they have been) I would seriously ask the nursery staff to do the same

emsiewill · 13/02/2002 16:18

Sort of changing the subject here, but still relevant...Just spoken to my sister, who informs me that her daughter has Rubella. Unfortunately, I saw her at the weekend, when she was incubating it. I know that I have low/no immunity to Rubella, as I was told this during my last pregnancy.
My niece has had the first MMR (she's 2.5), but obviously not the booster yet. When my sister talked to her doctor, he said, as though it was common knowledge "Of course, the Rubella doesn't work 99% of the time"!!! So why give it at all?! Would the single vaccine be more effective?

Can anyone tell me if I'm likely to now get Rubella, and if so, when. My sister's medical book says the incubation period is 14-21 days, and you are infectious from 7 days before until 4 days after the rash appears. So do I need to lock myself away? I know I can't go to Toddlers, as my friend is 8 weeks pregnant, and that's not a risk worth taking, but do I have to avoid everyone else? What about my 2? They've had MMR, one is "boostered". I'm really annoyed about this, did anyone else know this "fact" about the "R" part of the jab?

Batters · 13/02/2002 20:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

robinw · 13/02/2002 22:18

message withdrawn

OP posts:
SueDonim · 14/02/2002 00:37

Emsiewill, I would think you could now be incubating rubella. Were you not offered immunisation after your pregnancy, once your low immunity was recognised? Maybe you could ask your practice nurse about it.

vivienne · 15/02/2002 10:06

Hi,
I have just been reading through the vaccination messages and would like to comment. The one thing that I find very distressing and unacceptable in this whole public debate is the lack of hard facts. The Panorama doc on TV the other day was glaringly devoid of any empirical data, background or otherwise. Such as, exactly how many children suffer vaccination side effects? What are the current day risks from the diseases we vaccinate against? Just how many children develop harmful side effects from seemingly mild diseases such as measles? And how does that figure compare with the number of children suffering from the vaccinations themselves? I have read in scientific journals that the great reduction we have seen in recent years in these very serious childhood diseases is mainly as a result of a much healthier standard of living, and cannot by any means, be attributed to the vaccination phenomena. Should we not all be reading and learning about this? I also find it very worrying that so much of this issue is financially driven, and that the government health administration seems to be unashamedly concerned with the emotive and factually devoid marketing of these vaccinations than with answering any of the public's questions or with providing information and objective research into this critical issue. As we all know, our children's health should not be taken lightly.

robinw · 15/02/2002 22:10

message withdrawn

OP posts:
emsiewill · 16/02/2002 08:06

To answer your question, SueDonim, I was told that the midwife was going to write on my notes that I needed the vaccination, and it would be done when the baby had her jabs. I think I had a bit too much faith in the system, and put it out of my mind. When my dd had her jabs, I was a bit distracted, and forgot all about it until recently. That'll teach me.

SueDonim · 16/02/2002 11:41

Oh dear, Emsiewill. But it's very understandable - I found it hard to even remember my name, let alone something like that, when I was Postnatal Brain!

Croppy · 18/02/2002 10:22

If that's the case Vivienne why did children die in the recent outbreaks of measles in both Dublin and Tokyo?

Swipe left for the next trending thread