Dear MNHQ why does this board exist?

[TalkinPeace]

Having the board encourages people to think that not vaccinating is a valid viewpoint.

Thank you. I first mailed on 2nd March and wasn't necessarily expecting an immediate response, just acknowledgement that freedom of speech would be considered in your musings.

I asked:
How would you feel if other people forced their health related decisions on you? Obliged you to be a certain weight/compelled you to eat a particular diet/do a certain amount of exercise in order to reduce your risk factors for certain diseases - would that be reasonable?

Alyosha
How exactly do you compare a requirement to attend state school fully vaccinated with forcing people to go on early morning jogs? No child has to go to school - we have the freedom to homeschool in this country. No one is compelling you to have vaccines in this situation. It's just saying if you want your child to associate with the wider community, they must be vaccinated to do so, to protect those who can't be vaccinated and to improve public health.

If you want to dictate public health related measures to others and compel them to have vaccinations (which effectively you're doing if you're prepared to deny unvaccinated individuals a state education), then you need to consider how you would feel about other public health measures being dictated to individuals to reduce the risk of diseases. Obesity and lack of exercise are risk factors for certain diseases so it's a relevant analogy.

The point is, whilst you might think it's reasonable to oblige other people to make the same decisions as you, it's not likely that you, or anybody else, will respond so well to measures forced upon you.

As to the logic of forcing vaccination for state schools, people who attend them will have plenty of opportunity to come into contact with individuals outside school who won't be vaccinated/might be partially vaccinated/might be vaccinated but not immune or no longer immune. Interesting to consider how adults might respond to your requirement for compulsory vaccination in schools; the uptake rate of around 50% for seasonal flu vaccination amongst frontline healthcare workers suggests enforced vaccination might not be straightforward.

This is without even considering the size of the risk you think unvaccinated children pose.

The risk of unvaccinated children can be seen by comparing pre-mmr to post mmr incidents of pregnant women contracting rubella.

An obese person won't actually damage anybody else's health. A child with rubella can damage somebody else's health.

Yes many people will be immune because they had rubella in childhood or were vaccinated in secondary school, but the figures show that pregnant women still caught rubella.

Yes, they had it. Diagnosed at the time and we know they are immune.

No, no contact with pregnant women and even if there was it's a prime example of why you should ensure you yourself are immune rather than relying on other people who may not be immune. (In this case because they would have been too young to be vaccinated).

I have mentioned before on other threads that we were surprised how blasé the GP was about it. I'm not sure if he reported it or not. Given that so many cases are so mild I doubt many of them even make it into a doctor's surgery to even be reported.

re 1 in 6,000 risk of encephalitis - that's overall and it includes adults who have a higher risk of developing it.

merry - a single rubella vaccine in teenage girls vs a double dose of MMR in all children. How do you know that it was the age at which it was given that was the main factor resulting in the reduction in incidence of CRS?

merrymouse
The risk of unvaccinated children can be seen by comparing pre-mmr to post mmr incidents of pregnant women contracting rubella.

What difference would compulsory vaccination in schools make to current risk levels?

An obese person won't actually damage anybody else's health.

Obesity is thought to cost the NHS billions every year e.g:

www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/20/obesity-bigger-cost-than-war-and-terror

Since the NHS is limited in what it funds, it's fair to assume that the cost of obesity does indeed have an impact on the health of others and that funds for non obesity related treatment will be affected.

By giving it to all children (including boys) you reduce the ability of the disease to spread to the point where it is virtually eliminated. This is more effective than having frequent outbreaks of rubella while attempting to vaccinate those at risk.

Given that rubella is harmful in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy it is impossible to tell whether a child with rubella has come into contact with a pregnant woman unless you isolate them from all women of childbearing age from the time they are contagious - not really a practical proposition.

Of course the introduction of mmr and the dramatic reduction in cases of rubella could be random coincidence, but I think I'll take the word of respected statisticians and epidemiologists over unaccredited people on the internet.

Given that rubella is harmful in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy it is impossible to tell whether a child with rubella has come into contact with a

It wouldn't be an issue if they did come into contact with a pregnant woman if she was immune to rubella.

"Of course the introduction of mmr and the dramatic reduction in cases of rubella could be random coincidence, but I think I'll take the word of respected statisticians and epidemiologists over unaccredited people on the internet."

I didn't suggest it was a 'random coincidence'. I'm asking why, of all the things that were changed in relation to the rubella vaccine, do you think it's specifically the timing that is the variable that influenced the reduction?

What difference would compulsory vaccination in schools make to current risk levels?

Possibly none to rubella levels, thanks to the people who ensure their children are vaccinated.

To be honest I'm notsure that there is an argument for compulsory vaccination if uptake is high enough generally.

Some people can't be vaccinated for valid reasons and for them it seems to be unnecessary bureaucracy.

Equally parent's views should never be a reason not to educate children.

My point is that you can't compare vaccines to obesity. An obese person may cost me money, but they won't harm me or my children by compromising herd immunity.

Agree with merrymouse. I'd go for virtual eradication of rubella by vaccination of all those who can be, rather than relying on the pregnant woman to check she is immune to rubella before she gets pregnant. Not everyone can have the vaccines - so those that can should.

It wouldn't be an issue if they did come into contact with a pregnant woman if she was immune to rubella.

Because some people, for whatever reason are not immune to rubella. I am happy that my child will not put their child at risk.

Later vaccinations were tried. MMR is more effective because, again, it reduces all cases of rubella.

Not asking that she 'check before she gets pregnant.' Just wondering why you think it has to be given at 12 - 15 months.

"Later vaccinations were tried"

When?

As I mentioned earlier, it is possible that given its mildness many cases don't actually get reported.

Bumbley what are you trying to say? That MMR hasn't reduced cases of CRS dramatically? That our previous regime was effective (I mean, we know it wasn't - babies with CRS were still born)?

Is it everyone else's responsibility to avoid catching an illness almost eradicated in the UK because you didn't want to vaccinate? I mean you could have at least kept them inside whilst they were infectious!

Haven't we already come to a conclusion re: timing - 15 month olds are in contact with lots of young women. Young female teachers, the mothers of other 15 month olds etc.. etc. So vaccinating them helps to stop it spread to the young women the 15 month old is contact with....

Can you not read the question Aly?

"I'm asking why, of all the things that were changed in relation to the rubella vaccine, do you think it's specifically the timing that is the variable that influenced the reduction?"

"because you didn't want to vaccinate"

They were under a year old

"I mean you could have at least kept them inside whilst they were infectious!"

Who said I didn't.

Although as has been pointed out it can be v mild/asymptomatic while still being contagious which is why pregnant women shouldn't be relying on others to protect them.

Fascicle - I support "fat taxes" on sugary foods, for example. I also support high cigarette and alcohol taxes.

But you are not directly posing a risk to other people through being fat; by being unvaccinated you are directly posing a risk to children who can't be vaccinated, as well as young babies.

Your NHS funding analogy is very stretched.

I 100% support the smoking ban in public places. Do you?

What do you think changed the incidence of Rubella? And you know they had Rubella - did you GP send off a sample to the lab?

No one has any possible way to 100% tell you which factors influenced the change. You've moved the goalposts - first of all you were trying to insist that 15 month old children didn't need the vaccine at all....

Very public spirited of you to keep them indoors! Of course I missed that, I know you would have vaccinated them had they been the right age as you are not anti vax :)

I haven't moved the goalposts. I said I don't think it is necessary to give it at 15 months. I'm still saying that. Some of you are insisting that it was moving it to 15 months that had the impact on the incidence of CRS(rather than the other things that changed). It seems that you agree that there is no actual way to confirm that so I wonder why you continue to insist that it's the only acceptable way. How do you know that offering two doses of the rubella vaccine to girls and boys pre-puberty wouldn't have had the same effect on CRS incidence? You don't.

Are you always searching for 100% certainty in everything, Bumbley? Do you definitely, 100% know that your children had Rubella?

It's a good guess that stopping 15 month olds who have huge amounts of contact with young women of childbearing age helped to reduce the incidence of CRS.

But what do you think reduced the incidence of CRS Bumbley? I'm sure you have an idea.

Yes, I do. :) No, not always looking for 100% just trying to point out that you can't just push your 'good guesses' onto people who make different decisions to you.

Great, so how are you 100% certain your children had Rubella?

What do you think reduced the incidence of CRS Bumbley? I'm sure you have an idea.

Because they're immune to it.

Could have been extra dose of the vaccine/vaccinating boys as well or timing. You've already admitted you don't know which one it was either :)

How do you know they are immune?

Just wondering why you think it has to be given at 12 - 15 months.

To prevent spread of infection amongst primary and school age children.

"Later vaccinations were tried"

When?

In the 1970's and 80's when girls were vaccinated at secondary school.

Although as has been pointed out it can be v mild/asymptomatic while still being contagious which is why pregnant women shouldn't be relying on others to protect them.

Nothing wrong with suggesting that women who are trying to conceive should check their immunity. However, given that it is not possible to vaccinate everyone and some people will not plan to get pregnant and some people just won't want to go to a doctor, the most effective way of preventing CRS is to reduce the likelihood of catching MMR in the first place.

Vaccinating boys and girls pre-puberty rather than pre-school would increase the population who don't have immunity at a time when they are most likely to catch and spread infectious diseases.

No, not always looking for 100% just trying to point out that you can't just push your 'good guesses' onto people who make different decisions to you.

You don't have to agree with what I say. I am just a random on the internet.

However, the biggest reason why the current policy is unlikely to change is not me, a random on the internet. It's all the respected statisticians, epidemiologists, doctors and research scientists who advise the government, presumably because they care about children, not because they are in the pay of vaccine companies.

Anyway, whatever, mumsnet do about this board, I don't think it is likely to remove tin foil hat wearers from the internet.

Oh, you know, we just waved a pendulum over their heads and asked the gods

"To prevent spread of infection amongst primary and school age children."

Why is this necessary at that age?

"In the 1970's and 80's when girls were vaccinated at secondary school."

As I pointed out earlier - single dose given only to girls.

Why do you think the only options are vaccinate as a child or vaccinate before you get pregnant?

"the most effective way of preventing CRS is to reduce the likelihood of catching MMR in the first place."

Can you explain how measles and mumps cause congenital rubella syndrome?

Merry, did you vaccinate your children against chicken pox?

That doesn't sound a very good way identifying if your chlidren had Rubella Bumbley - perhaps you should get them re-vaccinated.

Children spread the disease to their pregnant mothers, or other pregnant women. I thought you understood this, Bumbley?

What do you think reduced CRS, Bumbley?

What's wrong the MMR, Bumbley? Do you think it triggers autism or something?