Son has measles

[melodiousmoan]

Why do people not vaccinate their kids? My child has been vaccinated but only had his first lot as is 20 months. He has contracted measles. I chose to vaccinate him against this. Ill advised people that think if they dont vaccinate there's only a slim chance your child will get this disease you're wrong. You're increasing everyone's chance of contracting the illness by ruining the herd immunity that this country had created. Not only are you doing this, you're increasing people with compromised immune systems' chance of death. I feel terrible that my child has to go through this because of others lack of understanding.

Not everyone who can't be vaccinated is immune compromised.

No, but OP specifically instances this group.

She and her son have learnt the hard way that it's not quite as black and white as we are led to believe:Vaccinate and you won't get the disease, don't vaccinate and you are a walking spray can of germs!

It all comes down to money. The stretched NHS has to find an economical way to vaccinate the masses.

They employ a one-size-fits-all approach which, surprise surprise doesn't fit. They then take away all other choices from most parents. I could of got single jabs but I would have had to travel to France to get them. I just don't have that amount of money to take trips abroad.
This leaves us with the MMR or nothing, because the govt have decided that they can get away with a couple of vaccine damaged children, it is more cost effective than hundreds of children and adults with measles, mumps or rubella.
They then turn parents against each other by branding those who are unwilling or unable to take the risk of vaccines as scaremongers or freeloaders who do not care for society.

Corus - re "the best choice for the individual is to be one of a small number of freeloaders. Unfortunately this increases risk for everyone. So how do you suggest it's dealt with?"

If you want to increase the number of people who vaccinate, you need to lower the perceived risk of the vaccine.

They tried doing this by crucifying discrediting Wakefield and saying over and over that MMR isn't risky. Well, that didn't work very well.

The way they haven't tried is to address people's fears and legitimate concerns (like not wanting to vaccinate against rubella) and offer single vaccines.

"Appeal to people's better nature? Not going to work."

Not only "not going to work", but ethically indefensible. You can't ask people to do something that is not in the best interests of their baby and has a small risk, for the benefit of some stranger adult.

"Make vaccines compulsory? That's going to be very unpopular."

Compulsory vaccination happens when the disease is truly terrible and the vaccination is clearly in the interest of the child. It is not ethical when the disease is a very mild childhood disease and it can't happen.

"I think social pressure has the best chance - those of us who vaccinate expressing how selfish we think the freeloaders are"

Good luck with that. I couldn't care less if you call me a 'freeloader', especially since I actually want DD to have rubella and be immune for life.

I think you will find that most parents will be thinking "Take an unnecessary risk on the well-being of my baby or be called a 'freeloader'. Ooooh, what a tough choice. Not."

"I could of got single jabs but I would have had to travel to France to get them."

Sorry to rain on that parade, but single vaccines are no longer available in France, where we live. DS managed to get literally one of the last Rouvax (single measles) vaccines in existence, and that was about 2 years ago. There were no mumps single vaccine even then.

Cote my dd is almost 6 so yes France was the option open to us to get measles, even dd3 at almost 4 could of got them in France. Once we knew the cost involved we had to go with not vaccinating against measles. The other two we wouldn't vax against

Cote you can't say that for sure unless it has happened to you already

Cote: They tried doing this by crucifying discrediting Wakefield and saying over and over that MMR isn't risky. Well, that didn't work very well.

I think this can be analysed a little further. 30-35 years ago parents were refusing the whooping cough vaccine, now they are not. What has changed? Was there a major epidemic of whooping cough (e.g. on a par with the 'Spanish' flu of 1918, or the Asian flu of the 1960s)? Not as far as I remember and I was an adult in the 1980s. IMO what has changed is that parents are now confident in the vaccine and believe that any risks it offers are more than outweighed by a small child catching the disease. And the specific vaccine that they used then is now no longer in use.

I suspect that the Wakefield issue won't go away is because a) sufficient people do believe that their child was affected by the MMR and b) a refusal to continue to make the single measles vaccine available, which was one which had been used for many years and had parents confidence, sounds like a political rather than a medical decision.

"people who do not vaccinate their children when there is no evidence to suggest that they are any more unsuitable to be vaccinated than other people's children are selfish freeloaders"

What evidence would you like Corus? Apparently a family history of vaccine reaction isn't enough for you.

We're not talking about buses or criminals here Corus. Apparently one of your children having a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine isn't a good enough reason to not vaccinate your other children afayac. You've accepted that some children shouldn't be vaccinated but you've given no idea of how they are supposed to be identified and have ruled out genetic links as an indicator. It doesn't seem like you've really thought this through tbh.

What tests are available to confirm to me that my child will not be harmed by vaccinations? Answer: None.

"I wonder if you would feel this way if your child was vaccine damaged? would you vaccinate a second child?"

You answered 'yes' to the above question "unless there was good reason to believe the second DC would be similarly unsuitable". How exactly do you expect them to determine whether the second child is unsuitable? There are currently no tests to establish this. Many parents base it on family history. You are suggesting that is not a good enough reason but in the absence of anything else, that is all they have to go on.

Where I got my, 'special' dangerously I'll informed information.
NHS Website states:
Can you still get measles after the MMR vaccination?

It’s extremely unlikely, but you need two doses of MMR to be fully protected. The first dose of the MMR jab protects 90% ofthose who receive it,and the second dose tops this up to 99% protection.Almost all of thechildren in the Welsh outbreakwho caught measles were either completely unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated.

I hope you can see how why I used the term half vaccinated. Perhaps partially is much better and that is what I will use in future to avoid confusing people that haven't done their research fully.

Melodious, I really don't see how you get 'half vaccinated' from that. you obviously haven't been around this board very often if you think the people posting here don't know anything about vaccines

To be protected against measles, the majority of children would not need the second dose MMR, would they?

But Corus, the big problem is that it's difficult to say which children should be exempt. I doubt whether the average GP is going to be fully acquainted with the most up to date research on contra-indications to vaccine. A specialist consultant might be.

The cross your fingers and hope for the best approach may be fine for the majority, but it's not for some others.

Almost all of thechildren in the Welsh outbreakwho caught measles were either completely unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated.

No, not quite true - they didn't have two doses of MMR. They may have had the single measles jab, but that will count as 'unvaccinated'. The 'partial' vaccination calls into question whether this vaccine really is working for the 90% of the population they say it does.

I recall that the mother of the young man who did die said that she thought he had been vaccinated against measles.

I also believe that up to the late 1940s/ early 1950s that people who did die, tended to die of secondary infections rather than the measles itself. The introduction of antibiotics substantially reduced this risk.