To ask why people don't vaccinate their DC even though we know that it doesn't cause Autism?

[TheHouseOnBellSt]

www.thespainreport.com/16953/six-year-old-boy-with-diphtheria-in-catalonia-dies/

A 6 year old boy in Catalonia has died of Diphtheria. Why are people still anti-vaccinations?

Why? My SIL has not and is not vaccinating her DS. He's 14 months now and MIL is so worried.

The NHS does rubella testing at the first bloods during pregnancy. No need to campaign for it.

Given that catastrophic damage is most likely in the early weeks before those bloods are done, it's quite possible someone would not know until it is too late.

And there is nothing that can be done until the end of the pregnancy (in France or UK) as it's a live vaccine. Other than hope that the disease doesn't circulate when your pg I'd vulnerable.

Xposted with you there Cote. It is the same here in Italy. There are diseases I've never even heard of that I know I'm immune to thanks to how very medicalised birth is here.

Maybe that should be a solution also in the UK. But then everyone would moan their rights to the pregnancy and birth they wanted would be usurped. Hey ho.

blood tests are done in the uk also. But they then immunise after the pregnancy so you are covered in the future. It seems to me it would be more sensible to offer this when someone is planning a pregnancy. Then they could have the injection prior to getting pregnant. I am tbf unconvinced by the rubella inclusion.

Cote you are talking about one illness here which can cause harm but seeing as it's only to foetus' hey never mind. If you are going to be so dismissive of other people's experiences why expect people to be so accepting of yours?

I've had rubella. I've also had the vaccine. I was the year they discovered it wore off after about seven years.

No, sharon. I'm responding to your message below when I say that I know rubella is not dangerous to my child and yes, I actively want her to get it so she will be immune for life.

It's not "oh it's just a fetus so nevermind". That is just silly and you are pretending that I am, too. My point is that the best way to ensure that doesn't happen to DD is to leave her unvaccinated as a child, hope she gets it, and becomes immune for life. Not to vaccinate her as a baby when she does not need that immunity at all and then wonder if her vaccine immunity has waned when she is actually at childbearing age.

If you can't keep up with the arguments, maybe you should just read rather than try to participate.

sharonthewaspandthewineywall Sun 28-Jun-15 12:53:04
Cote sadly you've no idea whether the illness will be dangerous to your child until they get it.

"What if your child was not yet showing the outward signs of rubella and met that hypothetical non-immune pregnant woman Cote? "

That would be unfortunate for that hypothetical non-immune woman, who is nonetheless old enough to be responsible for her own health and that of her fetus and should know better than to rely on everyone else in the world being immune for her sake.

tobysmum - re "It seems to me it would be more sensible to offer this when someone is planning a pregnancy. Then they could have the injection prior to getting pregnant."

I agree. The better approach to this whole rubella vaccination issue would be to leave children to get it and be immune for life. Then test girls for rubella immunity at age 15 or so and vaccinate those who are not yet immune at that point. That will mean (1) a much higher percentage of women with lifelong immunity, (2) not vaccinating boys, and (3) much lower percentage of girls who have to be vaccinated.

A better result all-around - far less women who are non-immune or with waning immunity with far less vaccination.

Cote I was responding to your post earlier saying that people don't immunise against these illnesses as they don't cause harm. How am I meant to know you are referring to simply one illness? No need to be a patronising arse but again like the anti Childcare threads it always seems to be the anti vaxers who won't listen to the point of view or experiences of people on the opposing side of the debate

If you can't keep up with the arguments, maybe you should just read rather than try to participate.
How bloody rude.

In 2014 there was 1 confirmed case of rubella in the UK, the 83 other people tested turned out not to have rubella. There were more reported cases but it's likely very few of them actually had rubella. This is why anecdotal evidence of so and so's baby had rubella and they were fine is a bit silly. It's likely they didn't have rubella at all but something else. I think her chances of catching it are fairly low it's more likely that she will think she has had rubella when in fact she hasn't.

Well, there's victim blaming if ever I saw it.

The hypothetical woman gets infected by your hypothetical kid and it's her fault?

Wow.

"How am I meant to know you are referring to simply one illness?"

Reading the thread before you post might help.

"The hypothetical woman gets infected by your hypothetical kid and it's her fault?"

As a parent, I am responsible for my children's health and safety, first and foremost. Not your hypothetical pregnant woman's. This is not even up for discussion, and calling me "selfish" or whatever as you are no doubt itching to do will not change this truth for any of us.

If that hypothetical woman is old enough to take on the responsibility of a baby, she is presumably old enough to take responsibility for her own health. Rather than expecting the world's infants (girls and boys, quite unnecessarily) to all be vaccinated for the sake of a hypothetical non-immune pregnant woman each might (or might not) come in contact with, you could perhaps direct your venom at the health services that don't test girls for immunity as teenagers.

"In 2014 there was 1 confirmed case of rubella in the UK"

DS had rubella as a baby (not in the UK). It is a very very mild and short-lived disease that typically goes away in a few days, sometimes before parents even realise it's happening. The "fever" is about 37.5 C, which is only just above the 37 C norm, so easily missed.

It really isn't a dangerous illness for children and the policy to vaccinate infants and therefore providing immunity at a time they don't need it is not defensible, especially since it seems to be centered on the completely unethical prospect of doing it to benefit others (adults) who could just as easily be vaccinated themselves.

In many cases it is mild. In cases with complications it can cause bleeding disorders, brain infection, visual impairment and pneumonia. Because there are so few cases it's very rare to see complications. If there were more cases the number of cases of complications would rise.

There was no rubella vaccine in my time, so I'm rather familiar with it. It's milder than the mildest cold. And then you are immune for life.

Common cold is more likely to develop complications than rubella. I don't see any hysteria about it on here, though.

I know there are a few immunologists on this thread. I've tried to find the answer to this and can't so can someone who knows help:

Posit 1 (mentioned upthread for various things like chickenpox and rubella): getting the illness gives lifelong immunity but vaccination doesn't.
Posit 2: the NHS say that one of the reasons that the varicella vaccine isn't given to children is because having the wild chickenpox illness circulating in the population "tops up" the immunity of adults who have had it therefore reduces the likelihood that they will get shingles.

Those two things are contradictory. And an immune reaction is an immune reaction, surely? The body doesn't know it's a vaccine not the real deal.

I remember having german measles when I was under five. I certainly don't remember any cold I had under the age of 10. Which shows to me its far from being milder than a mild cold.
You seem to like to base your 'facts' on your own limited experience don't you Cote?

I remember having German measles at about 4 but only because I was going round to my grandmother's and I was looking forward to showing her my spots. Fast forward a couple of hours they were gone and I was disappointed...

surely children dont get it now as they are vaccinated?

So an unvaccinated woman with no immunity has a toddler. She decides to not vaccinate her child. Her child is a toddler. Woman then becomes pregnant. Toddler gets Rubella.

If looking after other people's unborn children isn't important, what about your own?

What's the plan?