Dear MNHQ why does this board exist?

[TalkinPeace]

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

"It IS complex. And to fail to acknowledge that really is quite ignorant. It is not as simple as saying 'Pro/anti vax'."

Exactly.

"even if they do catch the disease later, it will be much milder."

Many childhood illnesses are more likely to cause complications in adulthood.

"There is still good evidence that it does have a positive effect, though."

"you can only attend state school with fully up to date vaccinations"

Why? Do you think unvaccinated children pose a risk to vaccinated ones?

Why? Do you think unvaccinated children pose a risk to vaccinated ones?

They are a risk to children who cannot be vaccinated , due to medical reasons, eg they are immunocompromised or allergic to a vaccine component. Every child without contra-indications like that should be vaccinated, because it is safe (very safe compared to other medical interventions) and it prevents the diseases in the first place.

So who decides what the valid medical reasons are in the school? What if you have 2 older siblings that reacted badly to vaccines and doctors don't know why. Do the parents have to vaccinate their youngest because technically there's no reason not to?
If people with known contraindications to vaccines were the only ones who ever reacted badly to vaccines then surely there would never be any vaccine reactions?

onholiday So do you think that unvaccinated children are carriers of the diseases that we vaccinate against?

Far less likely to, lavolcan. Nothing is 100% after all - we know that. But vaccines have a very high success rate and the more chidren that are vaccinated, the less likely the incidence of the disease is - the less likely epidemics are, the less likely immunocompromised children, or babies under the vaccination age are to be exposed to the diseases. That's what vaccination does -prevents the diseases. Primarily in the vaccinated children themselves, and secondary, in the children that cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

onholiday that doesn't answer my question. I wasn't asking whether you thought that unvaccinated children were more likely to catch the diseases. I was asking if you thought that their day to day state was as a carrier of diseases? In the way that there used to be carriers of TB who were well themselves, but infected others. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

I'm not annoyed. I have better things to do than have an argument as such a basic level when information is easily available (on the debate/argument, though appreciate difficult to access info. Per jab/disease)

What do you mean by 'Mumsnet does not count as a source'?

Counted by whom? For what?

Didn't realise I was in a court of law here! Perhaps you'd prefer to answer to it then? Do you also consider smallpox to be potentially beneficial to society?

Alyosha
I don't think we should be forcing parents to give their children vaccinations legally, but I do support a change in the law that you can only attend state school with fully up to date vaccinations, unless you've been told not to have them by a medical professional.

I'm not sure there's much difference between your two options. Why would you want to do that?

Because immunisation of the population is the safest thing for everyone? Including the children that can't be immunised for medical reasons.

I'm not for enshrining it in law - but it is the best thing for all children as a whole. I think vaccinating children is far safer than say, giving them antibiotics - yet there is not this thing against antibiotics. I have an allergy to antibiotics (penicillin), and was a bit scared giving my dc ABs - but i did, because the repercussions would likely be far worse. People are allergic to general anaesthetics too - but the consensus is that the benefits outweigh the risks. As for vaccines.

To ensure everyone that can be is is vaccinated, so we can start to eradicate more illnesses, save lives, stop kids being disabled and I'll unnecessary an to protect those who can't have vaccines.

Mumsnet isn't a source of evidence for anything. I could say I was anybody but there's no proof and I could be making it up.

If you are vaccinated the disease is milder when your older BM. There's research and everything! I had Measles vax but caught attenuated measles, much milder than actual measles. Classic coplix spots.

That's what annoys me about this board - it's a veritable hive of misinformation. People hinting that the diseases were not that bad, are mild, when in fact, the diseases were a source of dread in the 40s and 50s. Until the vaccines came in in fact.

You can easily wallow in 'the diseases were mild' rhetoric when vaccination has practically eradicated them in the UK, but if not enough children are immunised, they will come back.

Well, of course, some of us were alive in the 1950s, did catch the diseases and they weren't necessarily bad. Some children caught the diseases worse than others, I will grant.

There was a feeling in the 1950s that it was a 'good thing' to get the diseases and get them out of the way when you were a child, because they were usually worse if caught as an adult. My parents didn't go along with the measles or chicken pox parties, and I don't recall anyone else's parents doing that either, but I am told they happened.

TB seemed to be the disease my parents dreaded but maybe because they knew people who died of it?

There was a feeling in the 1950s that it was a 'good thing' to get the diseases and get them out of the way when you were a child

Only because they didn't have the preventative vaccines then. Those so-called "mild" childhood diseases killed children. they caused them deafness, blindness, brain damage and death. That's why the vaccines were introduced. My mother had partial blindness caused by measles. My brother had convulsions because of mumps.

When there is a safe way to prevent these diseases, why would you want your children to suffer them? And the risk of complications?

Aly - Or maybe your vaccine didn't work and you just had a mild case of measles? Can't say I've heard of someone catching attenuated measles. I've only heard attenuated used in the context of the less virulent version of a virus used in a vaccine.

onholiday "People hinting that the diseases were not that bad, are mild,... "

But some of them are. Even if you read the information on official websites they refer to some of the diseases as 'mild' 'self limiting' etc. Not all of them were dreaded.

That's hardly the point though, some case can be mild, but they are known to cause deafness, blindness, encephaly or death. So I repeat - why would you want your child to suffer that when there is a safe vaccine against it?

OP, people seem to be debating vaccinations. This seems to be the place for such a debate. If this board didn't exist, someone would have to invent it

What about rubella?

Rubella. Me: Life threatening to babies in the womb.

Vaccination is safe, and rubella - no longer such a threat to babies in the womb.

You?

In the context of it being something you wouldn't want your child to suffer...

(Bearing in mind that if they contract it they have lifelong immunity or could be vaccinated when older if required so they don't have to worry about it during pregnancy)

No, I'm talking about the threat of the diseases. You'd be happy for a child infected with rubella (which can be mild and symptomless) to come near you when you were pregnant? And cause your child to be stillborn, braindamaged or deaf?

Or shall we just vaccinate at 15months? And stop those women having the trauma of a damaged child in the womb?

Well yes, because I had rubella as a child and I'm immune to it so they can come near me all they like.

Why the need to vaccinate against it at 15 months ( I think it's earlier now)?