Vaccination uptake rates

[Gobbledigook]

For those interested, here is site where you can find out the vaccination uptake rate for your area.

MMR uptake for London is frightening.

PS - Not intending to start an argument about it btw, just linking it in for interest.

vaccinationuptakeforyourarea

difficulty with these stats is tho what about the kids who have had single jabs? the London rates may look low, but then there might be another 10% or so who have had the single jabs. or there might not. any idea if there are any stats kept on the single jabs?

What are these stats for? Children who have recieved every single vaccine as recommended by the NHS? So, a child who has had everything except say mump whould show up as having nothing?

Agree that jabs obtained privately are probably not recorded. I think it is up to the parent to keep the little red book up to date and I don't suppose anyone else has any record of it.

My son is someone who would show up in these 'frightening' statistics, because I'm in London, willing to have him fully immunised via single jabs, but the government is deliberately not allowing the single mumps vaccine into the country in sufficient amounts so he hasn't been able to have it. Mumps is not a serious illness in a child his age (three) so I'm certainly not panicking, but I am heartily pissed off.

aloha, I think Dr. Eden (www.e-med.co.uk) has the mumps vaccines. You may want to try him. DD goes there for single jabs. I just made an appoinment for her to get the mumps one in Feb.

My son is someone who would show up in these 'frightening' statistics, because I'm in London, willing to have him fully immunised via single jabs, but the government is deliberately not allowing the single mumps vaccine into the country in sufficient amounts so he hasn't been able to have it. Mumps is not a serious illness in a child his age (three) so I'm certainly not panicking, but I am heartily pissed off.

MTS/Uwila - just thought that while downstairs ironing! I bet there are no records on the single ones so perhaps slightly misleading.

Even so, do you think that say where uptake of MMR is only 60%, that a further 25% will have had single ones to make it up to 85%? Even in places were uptake is 80% there will be a further % that have single jabs also - I wonder if that would even out the figures or whether it would still be lower in certain areas??

Even so, uptake is about 85% in my area so I just feel a bit happier that the chances of a measles outbreak is perhaps less than somewhere else - just from a selfish point of view because ds3 is only 12 wks so of course has not had any measles vaccination at all as yet.

I did say I didn't want to spark a row!! It was just for interest - I was directed to it by a friend and just thought others might be interested.

GDG - you call this a row

BUt a mumsnetter who wants her dd to catch measles naturally before puberty was told by her GP that the incidence of measles is so low that she was unlikely to be able to expose her child........ They've been threateing measles outbreaks every year I can remember.

IOME- unless you go to a Steiner school 98% of children who haven't had MMR have had single jabs. Those who haven't had single jabs haven't had any jabs at all (except for one friend whose kids have had tetanus).

The figures are used as propaganda to scare people into having the MMR.

BTW our local Steiner school had a whooping cough outbreak- (new strain that wouldn't have been affected by vaccination anyway) but no measles or mumps outbreak yet........

Pardon my ignorance, but what is a Steiner school?

BTW, this definitely isn't in the row category -- not yet anyway. I think it's an interesting debate. And because I personally don't trust the NHS as fas as I can trow them, I find the information I get here on these threads to be so much more useful to helping me decide what to do with vaccinations.

No, there's no row on here!! I just feel the potential for one - just because it's about vaccines!!

I don't think it's propaganda at all!!! It's just compiling vaccine figures - quite normal and quite interesting!! If it were propaganda to try and increase uptake of MMR - how come there are figures going right back?? They couldn't have predicted the situation now back then could they?! Also, these figures are not in your face - they are only there if you look for them!

TBH, I don't understand the level of mistrust - do you honestly think that those in power just couldn't care less about the health of the next generation?!?!?! I worked in drug safety at the CSM and I can assure you there is nothing untoward going on there. I know all the people who were on the MMR working party and I trust them implicitly.

Each to their own though - we all make different decisions surrounding our children and that's perfectly reasonable!

I think the NHS does what they genuinely is best for:
1- the entire population
and
2- their budget

I, however, do what I think is best for my individual child. And, there is room for conflict in the current system.

I'm another who wouldn't show up in those statistics though I am fiercely pro-vaccination

I also am waiting for mumps for DS (paid for sept 2002) .. and not bothered too much

its actually difficult to row about vaccinations on mumsnet because so many MNers agree about this one

or maybe we're the vocal minority

The uptake of the vaccine in our area is relatively often making the news..... don't have to hunt for it at all!

Uwila - I agree but to me that makes sense. I don't know how else you could approach it other than looking at the population as a whole. Plus, if there is no reason to believe that there is any safety issue with MMR then it seems fair enough to me that that is what is offered. Of course cost does also come into it - the cost of giving 6 individual jabs is obviously more than 2 both in terms of drug cost and time to administer so why would they go down that road if there is no evidence whatsoever to back up a link between MMR and autism? It would be entirely different if they thought for one minute there was a link. I do agree that there perhaps needs to be more research into what might predispose some children to these reactions, if indeed they are reactions to the vaccine (which noone can say for 100% certain) so that perhaps a more structured approach to the MMR vs single jabs decision can be taken (ie offer to those for whom there really is a case for avoiding MMR if that is found to be so) - because of course it doesn't make sense to just make single jabs available on the NHS without any real indication.

The CSM reviews the safety of all drugs in exactly the same way, including vaccines - if it is felt on review that there may be a causal relationship between a reaction and a drug it is added to the SPC. If it's felt that it warrants restriction or withdrawal then that's what happens. I don't understand why people would think there is something different about the way MMR is dealt with?? It's dealt with in the same way as everything else but everyone is happy enough with the safety assessment of all the other drugs.

Obviously in deciding what drugs are made available lots of factors are taken into consideration but not at the expense of safety. Decisions on availability of all drugs, generally (not talking about vaccines now) are taken in each PCT based on different factors so it happens all the time. In all the work I've done though, listening to specialists, GPs, Public Health Directors etc, when deciding on what drugs to put on their own formulary safety and efficacy come first. The only time cost comes into it is when 2 drugs are pretty much equal aside from that factor.

This is probably a bit garbled and I probably won't get chance to come back to this now as I'm working so please don't think I'm ignoring any further comments!

To be honest, for me the issue isn't making singles available on the NHS - the issue is the fact that the government is actively preventing people like me and Twiglett from vaccinating our children privately by not allowing sufficient stocks of the mumps vaccine into the country for political reasons - then berating people for not vaccinating.....aargh!

Twiglett - tbh, I think you might be right about 'vocal minority'!!

I have noticed that with many contentious threads they become very one sided and only a few will come on and give the opposing view. Being in the minority then, you tend to get shouted over so I reckon a lot of people who don't agree just stay out of it. There just is no point because everyone just gangs up!! Honestly - it got like that on the breast vs bottle where there were basically 6 million people telling us about all the horrific things that can happen to bottle fed babies (yeah, right!) and the few that came on to say it really wasn't that much of an issue were just insulted.

The thread after the dispatches programme was the same - it was dominated by a few with a very strong opinion one way so I think many with the opposite view just stayed away. I did!

The fact that MMR uptake rates are still around 80% in most areas show that it is the 'vocal minority' that feel it's not safe!

Aloha - I see, that makes sense. As I understand it, the reason that some of the single jabs have not been made available is because they are from abroad and therefore the CSM cannot be as sure of their safety profile as they are of the drugs that have been licensed and monitored here.

Gobbledigook,
A very fundamental part of the single jab argument is that the burdon of proof absolutely belongs to proving the MMR is safe, not in proving it is unsafe. So to say that it is okay because there is no proof that it isn't is simply not a valid argument.

Does anyone really think I'm going to bring you my child so that I can use her as proof to say "see, you damaged her". NO WAY!!!!

The government keeps single jabs out because they don't want parents to be able to get them. They don't want parents to get them because they are afraid that parents will get the measels jab and then not bother paying for the other one or both. If that happens, then they risk a rubella or mumps outbreak, which would be a real inconvenience to the population as a whole (and to the NHS budget!). Hence, they are taking the choice away from parents by restricting the supply. They can mask this reality under the excuse of "they aren't licensed" or "they are hard to obtain from abroad" or whatever they want. The truth is the NHS wants to make the choice for us. And, it is that very attitude that sent me packing for single jabs. I and only I will choice what substances are injected into my children.

Oh, and if licensing is an issue, than the bloody NHS shouls license single jabs.

No drug can be deemed 100% 'safe' can it?? All drugs have potential side effects and some people are more at risk than others.

Noone can say with 100% certainty that MMR does not lead to autism but there is no evidence to say that it does. Only if there is evidence to suggest that a drug causes a reaction will that reaction be listed in an SPC or will the drug be contraindicated in certain populations.

So cynical!!

Perhaps I would be too if I'd not worked in drug safety myself (was even involved with the MMR Working Party at one point). I suppose I come from a completely different angle.

I totally agree with you that only you can decide what is put into your child - of course. That's the case for all drugs.

But when it comes to vaccines and infectious diseases, obviously there is a wider public health issue that has to be addressed and of course that's why the DoH has to try and decide what is best for the population as a whole.