Dear MNHQ why does this board exist?

[TalkinPeace]

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

Yes Bumbley, vaccines aren't perfect! Sometimes immunity does wane. What's not in doubt is how despite their (few) limitations, vaccines have been marvellously successful at reducing death and disability. Can you think of a perfect health intervention with no side effects and that works 100% of the time? I mean vaccines are close but if you're waiting for perfection it's never going to happen.

I'm surprised that onholiday's mother wasn't tested for rubella immunity in pregnancy. They test it each time as far as I am aware and were doing this back in the 1970s, although I don't know when the test was introduced.

Her mother could easily not know if she had caught the disease, because it was mild. But yes, if you had the slightest suspicion that you could have the disease - say it was doing the rounds at school - you would most definitely have told a pregnant woman to stay away.

Sorry, Bumbley - might have been the greatest cross post ever (and a revelation for the vaccines board) - your children had what? The MMR?at 1 yr?

Bumbley has made it clear that she's a ruthless individualist - it is your responsibility to enquire as to the rubella status of every child you encounter, don't count on her to tell you!

Lavolcan -did you not realise german measles was a risk in the 60s? Turns out you're not the font of all knowledge after all.

But back to the question: having this board allows people to think that not vaccination is a valid viewpoint..

Regardless of whether we agree or disagree, are we saying that unless the opinion is in line with the majority of MN, there should be no discussion and in fact discussion should be stifled and discouraged??????

(Seriously???))

Come on MNHQ, answer my PM. Are you really prepared to shut down discussions because they don't fit with your politics?

onholiday - again, why are these pregnant women at risk of developing rubella not immune? Did their vaccine not work/immunity from it wane?

Aly, just wondering why a 15 month old needs to be vaccinated against rubella still. Onholiday doesn't seem to be able to answer. I would ask you to help her out but you're still struggling with it on the other thread...

They had rubella onholiday. When they were both < 1 year. Have you name-changed recently? Your posting style reminds me of someone.

"t is your responsibility to enquire as to the rubella status of every child you encounter, don't count on her to tell you!"

I've said this where exactly? Surely it would just make more sense to be aware of your own immune status to rubella? You know, seeing as you can't know the immunity status of everyone around you - even if they have been vaccinated.

Your silly jibe apart: We were only too aware of german measles being a risk to pregnant women in the 1960s. That is why we were relieved when we caught it because we knew we would be protected in pregnancy.

Rubella wasnt easy to catch prior to vaccination. Why were so many women infected during pregnancy if it was normal to get in childhood.
Epidemics only come every 5 to 7 years. My sister and I caught it from my mum in probably the last epidemic epidemic.We were both in our teens and my mum was 38.

Rubella is extemely rare in the uk and most of europe (exceptions poland and romania). Less tham a 100 cases a year .There just 60 cases in 2012.Other viruses are mistaken for Rubella and 90% cases that have been tested come back negative.

Who cares/ Some women are not immune - either because they couldn;t have the vaccine or because the vaccine didn't work.

What I want to know is whether you are expecting your children to get wild rubella, and whether you will warn pregnant women? This must prey heavy on your mind since you believe vaccines don't work/wane or whatever (I can't tell which from your posts). It must be problematic to you - after all you willl be risking the health of unborn children in the womb.

Or have your dc had the mmr?

I don't think anyone on this thread is arguing against rubella vaccination are they?

However, if you were around before the vaccine was invented then yes, you were better off getting the disease if there was any possibility of your becoming pregnant. In my case, no I wasn't tested at the time, but once I was pregnant the tests came back showing immunity, so it's likely that it was rubella.

Two reasons BM

And then I swear I will go to sleep!

It reduces the risk of passing it to pregnant women far below just vaccinating women.

And why not protect children from illness when you can - as I shows in the other thread serious complication are rare but can happen. 1 in 6000 apparently! More than twice as likely as a (none life threatening) reaction to MMR.

"Who cares/ Some women are not immune - either because they couldn;t have the vaccine or because the vaccine didn't work. "

So they're also putting pregnant women at risk then? The whole way through their childhood and adulthood.

I've now said 3 times that my children have already had rubella when they were under a year.

Your children had rubella? Are you sure? It's notoriously hard to diagnose. I hope you didn't have any contact with pregnant women at the time.

So bumbley's children have had rubella. And obviously, miraculously not come into contanct with any pregnant women.

That must mean that the mmr is beneficial to no child ever - whether they have younger siblings in the womb or whatever. Let's just let those babies be subjected to measles, mumps, rubella - it's natures way, after all.

was it lab tested Rubella BM
in the last 10years there were under 15 cases in under 1s in the whole of that time. in the years since 2002 it was only one or two children.

<a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140505192926/www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733752351" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">figures for Rubella since 1996 by age

I meant one or two children a year.

AND reason those figures are so low is...VACCINES, ta da.

Dont let anything fool you otherwise - Sanitation sure - but how bad do you think sanitation was in the 50's? (not that bad).

Or even in the 90s - you know VACCINES, they're really effective and really safe you know.

www.sense.org.uk/content/congenital-rubella-syndrome

General information on crs

"If a woman catches rubella during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy the chance of her baby being affected by congenital rubella syndrome is as high as 90 per cent and the baby is likely to experience multiple impairments at birth."

"Incidence
Before vaccination was introduced in the early 1970s, it is estimated that 200 - 300 infants were born with congenital rubella syndrome in each non-epidemic year in the UK; many more were born in epidemic years. Rubella in pregnancy was responsible for 15 – 20 per cent of significant congenital hearing loss and two per cent of congenital heart disease.

Immunisation success
Rubella immunisation was introduced in the UK in 1970 for women of childbearing age and school girls. Since then there have been than 800 babies born disabled as a result of their mothers catching rubella in the early stages of pregnancy. In the same period there have been over 6,500 rubella related terminations.

Since the triple MMR vaccine was introduced in 1988 in the UK there have been just 74 congenital rubella births and only 16 this century; the cases that are reported tend to be to women born abroad who were not immunised as children, and the women themselves have often acquired infection abroad."

Aly, just wondering why a 15 month old needs to be vaccinated against rubella still. Onholiday doesn't seem to be able to answer. I would ask you to help her out but you're still struggling with it on the other thread...

This has been answered several times, very clearly. The evidence shows that it has been far more effective to vaccinate pre-school and stop the spread of rubella in nurseries and primary schools than to vaccinate girls in secondary schools.

@anotherdayanothersquabble

Come on MNHQ, answer my PM. Are you really prepared to shut down discussions because they don't fit with your politics?

Thanks for your PM - sorry I haven't replied personally - I've passed it on to the team for consideration - the majority of folk work 9 to 5 hours and it's as you can imagine not a decision we would take likely.

PLEASE ALL do be advised that PMing MNHQ is all fine and dandy - (happy to chit chat about Archers/West Wing/Good Wife/House of Cards/whatever at any point)
but never the best way for a speedy response> lots of us are on flexible hours and thus can't guarantee when we're about.
For that the best thing is to REPORT the post
Thanks so much

{Are you watching Scandal too? It's brilliant!}