Please explain, succinctly, the anti vac argument

[WorkingBling]

With all the current news re vaccines and measles I realised that while I am very comfortable and believe strongly that vaccines are the most appropriate defense, I don't actually understand the anti vac argument. I remember the Wakefield thing but that has been debunked. So why do people still resist? What is the thinking?

Someone told
Me that he doesn't "agree with vaccines" in much the same tone as he mightn't say he doesn't agree with the death penalty but I was too nervous to push him further without understanding the issues better.

It is another great misconception that those who choose not to vaccinate to schedule rely on herd immunity to protect their children and are grateful to those self sacrificing vaccinators for the lack of circulating diseases

Naturally acquired immunity is passed on to babies, lasts longer than vaccinated immunity and is extended by breast feeding.

The risks of waning vaccinations pushes the risk of MMR into puberty and beyond where the risks are higher than between the ages of 6 months and 10 years.

I never heard anyone before suggest that anti-vaxxers were grateful to pro-vaxers.

But vaccinations do jump up whenever there's an outbreak of nasty VPD. Which kind of suggests some people haven't thought it thru fully.

Perhaps the nuance in the latter part of this thread is more 'should be grateful.'

I'm old enough to have had measles (first jab was was only just staring to be rolled out about the time I had it). And, as LaVolcan says, for most children, it was not too bad. They might feel dreadful for up to a week, but would bounce right back. And it's probably much the same now.

But the complications can be horrible, they happen at random, and they happen much more commonly than events which might be vaccine-related. They range from sensory damage (eyesight and hearing, including permanent hearing loss) through to pneumonia (commonest cause of measles related deaths) and encephalitis, which can lead to permanent changes to the brain and consequent loss of cognitive function.

The complication I think cruellest - because it generally develops 7-10 years after what appears to be full recovery from the disease - is subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) a very rare, but fatal disease of the central nervous system.

I had measles - it was fine (actually one of my happiest childhood memories / but we'll leave that, also remember my friend's mum saying 'in a shop for goodness sake get your hands off the counter you've got measles' and the serving lady rolling Her eyes - it would be mass panic these days - anyway an aside from a 70's childhood). It can be nasty - my mother was very ill with it, spent months in hospital & is deaf in one ear. Ds1 is vaccinated, ds2 & ds3 are not (frankly I'd prefer deaf in one ear than what ds1 lives with - it doesn't get much worse - my mother agrees).

Anyway just popped in to say everyone vaccibates/doesn't vaccinate for selfish reasons - if making decisions in your child's interest is a definition of selfish. Unless you're suggesting people vaccinate purely to protect others while thinking their own child will be damaged. Does anyone do that? If you're not doing that then put away the 'selfish' argument. If you are seriously vaccinating thinking your child will be damaged but you'd better do it to protect others & sod you're own child you're a crap mother.,

I vaccinated ds1 because i thought the risks for him were small and the vaccinations would protect HIM. Had I been shown his current life I would have made a very different decision.

*My son got whooping cough (despite vacs - luckily the vaccinations prevented his siblings getting it).

But he was vaccinated, and still got it?*

Yes-he was 13. He had had the infant vac and the 12 year booster - still got it (it happens). possibly he got a less virulent version because of his vaccinations. But no one in his class got it and neither of his sisters got it. It was a very frightening experience listening to him cough (he turned blue in front of me and we ended up in hospital). I honestly don't know why you would risk an infant getting this disease.

Saintly I disagree. I vaccinated my children because I think it is best for them yes but I also understood the herd immunity concept.

people who don't vaccinate also understand the herd immunity concept but instead of vaccinating, they use their understanding of herd immunity to take their children out of the miniscule risks associated with vaccines because they can still rely on that herd immunity. They are incredibly selfish in my opinion - and also making bad decisions for their children.

just to add -my comments are directed at people who do not vaccinate. not those who vaccinate on a different schedule (although I also would not choose to do that)

You would vaccinate your children if they were at higher risk of damage from a vaccination just to protect others? With no concern about the damage your child may have? Wow. Have you met someone with severe neurological damage before?

May I suggest that you vaccinated your children believing their risk to be so minuscule as to be negligible, then you gave yourself a big pat on the back for being such a caring person & helping others. Can you not see that for some that risk isn't easy to assume it's negligible. I merrily vaccinated ds1 to protect him while giving myself a big pat on the back. I didn't have the luxury of assuming a negligible risk for ds2 or ds3.

I suspect we all want the same thing - our children to reach adulthood & live an independent life. Ds1 won't - he's currently needing 2:1 care, this may reduce to 1:1 at some stage. I'm afraid I wasn't about to risk sending my other two along the same path to reduce the tiny risk of passing on some disease (anyway my son caught rubella from a vaccinated child & didn't pass it on to anyone - more than one way to be responsible). I think had I vaccinated ds2 & ds3 knowing their risk of damage was higher then I would have been doing them a huge disservice (they agree - they don't want to be like their brother).

Read the JCVI minutes from the last couple of years about whooping cough. It seems to have been decided adult/teen outbreaks cannot be stopped - they seem to have abandoned the idea of herd immunity for whooping cough (or cocooning) & instead have gone for direct protection of babies - hence pregnant mothers being given the shot.

Canyouforgiveher
I vaccinated my children because I think it is best for them yes but I also understood the herd immunity concept.

Was herd immunity the driving factor in your decision making? It doesn't sound like it was. It sounds like it was an additional justification, rather than a primary reason.

If you understand herd immunity, please can you explain how it is applied to adults. What are your thoughts on adults who are unvaccinated/partially vaccinated/unsure of which diseases they have had and which vaccinations they have received? What is their role in contributing to/taking advantage of/weakening herd immunity?

people who don't vaccinate also understand the herd immunity concept but instead of vaccinating, they use their understanding of herd immunity to take their children out of the miniscule risks associated with vaccines because they can still rely on that herd immunity.

That's a pretty warped perception on your part. What about people who would have made the same decisions, regardless of herd immunity? Or those who acknowledge there are downsides to the concept of herd immunity?

I doubt whether people who don't vaccinate, or vaccinate to a different schedule, think primarily of herd immunity. I suspect that a majority will try to concentrate on making sure that their child is as healthy as possible - sound diet, healthy lifestyle etc.

Re a posting earlier about 'pro' vaxers not rushing to get their sons vaccinated against HPV: How many parents would bother vaccinating a boy at 10/11 for rubella, a disease which is mostly mild, and isn't going to have adverse effects on him, if it wasn't included in the MMR?

these threads never go well.
I got my first vaccinated, after what happened as a consequence I decided not to vaccinate the other 5. They got measles 3 years ago. It was miserable but they were and are fine.

This thread is doing better than most - there is usually blood on the carpet by about the 20th post.

bigbuttons (and others who have made the same decision) - when you didn't vaccinate the other 5 did you consciously think 'herd immunity will protect them.'

Ds2 & ds3 are unvaccinated - no I don't think herd immunity will protect them (partly because I think the current models don't take into account efficacy without circulating disease - and I suspect we will see more outbreaks due to waning immunity).

I accept my children may get any of the diseases.

No, i didn't think herd immunity would protect them. I knew there was a risk. I had to look at what happened to ds1. I didn't want that to be repeated. It was a difficult decision and wasn't made over night.

canyou In my experience, who choose not to vaccinate categorically do not rely on herd immunity.

I chose not to vaccinate and I definitely do not rely on herd immunity. I don't care who vaccinates or not, I've made the best decision for our family, herd immunity didn't even come into my thinking. I don't expect to be protected by herd immunity.

Of course, if the vaccines really worked, my unvaccinated child wouldn't be a concern to anybody else.

There used to be an MN poster who said (I think this is real) her little baby ID twin girls got measles. One recovered well, one was badly brain damaged. So she had an constant comparison to see shouldn't have happened.

I have a poor moral compass or I'd be a hugely outraged on that mother's behalf, and very unhappy about people who choose to reduce herd immunity for those who can't be vaccinated (like small babies).

if the vaccines really worked, my unvaccinated child wouldn't be a concern to anybody else.

Quite, and we might have a bit less of the holier than thou moralising - "I am not really doing it for my child, but the good of society."

The Onion nails it

www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-vaccinate-my-child-because-its-my-right-to,37839/

Obviously my extensive vaccination schedule has damaged my ability to post links
www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-vaccinate-my-child-because-its-my-right-to,37839/

The thing is ragged- babies used to get good immunity from their mothers. Babies born to vaccinated mothers are far more likely to have no immunity to neasles (& this isn't controversial - if you Google you can find an NHS document with recommended course of action after a baby had been exposed to measles - where they talk about this very issue & provide links to the relevant research).

That's an interesting point Jim jams. A bit like the whole sun/damage/vitam in D argument (in essence people are so parancid about sun damage that children have no natural protection having not been exposed to any sunlight and therefore are unable to be exposed to enough sunlight to make sufficient quantities of vitamin D.

However I would argue there are some new uniquely vulnerable groups ( those on steroids or other immunosuppressive drugs, those who have had chemo) so it's not quite as simple as the good old bad days when most dcs had these contagious disease between 1 and 10 .

ooo, pet peeve of mine:

On average, the measles titer of a women immune through disease is about twice as high as that of a mother immune through vaccination. That means, baby gets about twice as many antibodies from mom who had to live through measles. Since passive immunity is degraded in the blood with a half life of 3 to 4 weeks, this gives about a month longer protection. Is that worth the risk of the disease? Hardly, especially since SSPE also occurs in babies who are subclinically infected (because of imperfect maternal immunity), as observed in Africa.

Also, maternal immunity is NOT transferred via breastmilk. There are no anti-measles IgAs found in milk past 2 weeks post partum (and that is in mothers immune through disease).

Breastmilk is awesome, and best and blablabla, but not a panacea.

My child is vaccinated on schedule. I went through the risks and, as best as we could calculate (science PhD here as well), he was typical low risk for a poor reaction from any of them. And he was/is fine.

Thing is, given that low risk, my decision to get him his jabs was based on both personal protection and herd immunity reasons. They're not mutually exclusive. Nor is it a holier-than-thou attitude; I feel that I share collective responsibility for other people who can't be vaccinated for various reasons. So even though my vaccinated ds contributes only a teeny-tiny reduction in risk across the general populace, it's an effect that becomes highly significant when repeated by lots of other people.

The relative importance of self- vs. others' protection vary for me with the type of vaccine.

For example, we opted to get the BCG because, although my ds won't be visiting countries where TB rates are high, he is very likely to spend time at his cm group with kids who will (or whose families will). So the BCG was definitely more for personal protection.

OTOH, I will be looking for him to get the HPV vaccine when he is older, too. That one's for others' protection. I would feel guilty and irresponsible if I chose for him not to get it.

My point for explaining my rationale here is that we all look out for our children's welfare, but that doesn't mean altruistic motivations don't also play a role in vaccination. For me, it's similar to the NHS philosophy: contribute what you can (be it taxes or vaccine take-up) so that everyone - regardless of individual contribution - has the chance to benefit if the need arises.

How would one find out if their child was low or high risk geek?