Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Rather depressed at this logic re MMR

44 replies

Kathyis6incheshigh · 31/08/2007 16:01

Was just chatting to a neighbour who was telling me the compromise she and her husband came to re MMR: he didn't want their son to have it, she did, so he had the first one but not the booster

AIBU to find this rather depressing?

OP posts:

TheMaskedPoster · 31/08/2007 16:40

dd had the MMR and then the booster a very short time afterwards (months if I recall rightly). It was because LOTS of parents weren't giving their children the vaccine and therefore making it a high risk area.

so she is only just 3 and has been immunised AND boostered already.

expatinscotland · 31/08/2007 16:40

They really, really should, Lady. IIRC, an MN on here said that all new students to Oxford are being asked to have an MMR booster before coming to school as they have had outbreaks of mumps as well.

It is compulsory in the US for most state universities. It was even when I started in 1989 due to a massive measles outbreak on campus the year before.

alycat · 31/08/2007 16:41

80% of children are covered by the first jab, all children get the booster as it is cheaper to give it than test everyone and repeat it for the 20% not covered.

I agree should be given at early teens.

canmummy · 31/08/2007 16:41

Sorry - one dose.

Teens were offered it a couple of years back when it was realised that they had only been offered 1 mmr as a baby and never had it boosted

expatinscotland · 31/08/2007 16:42

teens should be offered it again even if they have been boostered at 4-5. because the immunity is not lifelong.

LadyVictoriaOfCake · 31/08/2007 16:51

can you still have a booster and not develope immunity, that is the other concern.

yes to teenagers having it, dont they also get offered a menigitus jab in teenage years?

dd1 and dd2 will have the flu jab as they are 'at risk', not sure if dh can have the flu jab, but i think he has to have the pneumonia one as well now. they are done yearly.

dd1,2+3 have all had the baby jabs done, dd1 had Hib booster and flu jabs.

dd2+3 had their jabs more spaced out, which was mainly choice and also partly circumstances.

EffiePerine · 31/08/2007 16:51

In Hackney the take up of MMR overall is only about 70%, hence 150 cases of measles in ths past month and 10 children in hospital with pneumonia . Clinics are being inundated now there are actual cases of measles in the community.

Dinosaur · 31/08/2007 16:52

I'm in Hackney too, Effie.

EffiePerine · 31/08/2007 16:55

Many of the cases are in my area as well. DS is only 10 1/2 months, so am waiting anxiously until he can be immunised! He does have bad reactions to jabs, but better than the alternative.

cat64 · 31/08/2007 17:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster

Kathyis6incheshigh · 31/08/2007 17:39

I know Cat.
There are lots of measles cases in my area too and I find it a worry.

I don't mean because I am afraid they will die of it or anything, but the fact is it's a pretty nasty illness. Worse than just a bad cold, from what I hear.

OP posts:

flightattendant · 31/08/2007 17:44

I was wondering about this...ds1 just had booster, just in time it would seem..but ds2 is 12 weeks. Isn't he at risk???

MrsWeasley · 31/08/2007 17:44

I remember when my DD1 was about to have her MMR and a mum spoke to everyone at the toddler group to ensure we were all having the jab because..................

she didnt want her DS to have the jab but if everyone in their "circle" had it then he would never be exposed to measles, mumps etc and therefore be safe

constancereader · 31/08/2007 17:44

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2356128.ece

This was in today's paper.

berolina · 31/08/2007 17:47

ds had the first MMR but is not having the 'booster'. We were unhappy about MMR and wanted to do singles but were having terrible trouble sourcing (we are in Germany) and in the end I just thought 'OK, let's get this over with and do MMR', and regretted it, not because ds wasn't fine - he was, thank goodness, but because it did feel like a gamble (FWIW I believe MMR is safe for the vast majority of children, but possibly not for all, and I have a few slight auto-immune issues) and I'd never have forgiven myself if it had caused problems. I am rather frightened of measles, though, so we will be having his immunity checked and giving a single measles booster soon if necessary, and definitely mumps/rubella boosters as teens.

The Germans give the second MMR more or less straight after the first (the first is between 11 and 14 months, the second between 15 and 23 ), which I've never been able to understand.

NineUnlikelyTales · 31/08/2007 17:50

It's not depressing, it's hilarious

AIBU to be thiking of loads of brilliant compromises people could have?

I am a strict christian, my DH is a satanist, so DS says the Lord's prayer every day, but backwards

Can't write any more as am laughing too much at my own joke (blame the irreverent posts thread)

berolina · 31/08/2007 17:50

NineUnlikelyTales

Original poster

Kathyis6incheshigh · 31/08/2007 19:29

LMAO Nineunlikelytales! How about 'I am a socialist but my husband wants to get a good education for our dcs so we are only sending them to private schools which also educate the children of members of the Labour cabinet.'

Actually I thought about what my neighbour had done in the light of the fact that the booster is about covering the un-immune 10-20% rather than, as I had wrongly assumed, replacing the immunity which would have worn off from the first jab (though isn't that what 'booster' implies? Bit of a misnomer if that's not what it's for). In fact if you really thought there was a risk of damage from MMR then you'd just be gambling that your dcs weren't in that ten percent and halving the risk of vaccine damage, which would be a reasonable thing to do.
I don't think they do have any reason for thinking they're at risk, though, other than the generalised 'MMR is scary' thing.

OP posts:

Dinosaur · 01/09/2007 18:57

LOL at the unlikely compromises.

I used to work with a bloke who was trying to cut down on caffeine, but was also worried because he'd read that decaffeinated coffee wasn't very good for you, so he used to put half a tsp of one and half a tsp of the other in his cup each time!

Flip

1 2