Please advise r.e lack of mumps vaccine for single jabs.

[Ninks]

Hello

I'm asking on behalf of a friend of mine in SE Essex. Her DD had the single jabs but her DS has only had the rubella and measles because the clinic has said that the mumps vaccine is now unavailable.

They've told her that it's no problem because he can have the triple, well actually quadruple jab including the latest one - (pneumonia?) but that isn't the point, surely?

My mate paid for single jabs and now they're messing her around. I'd be after a refund, they didn't fulfil the contract and saying, "oh it's OK your DS can have the MMR" thus giving him a double dose...

I am woefully ignorant about such things as my DD and DS both had the triple.

Any advice would be very welcome. TIA

bleugh

scuse rushing

"Musukeba how on earth do you get away with saying: "you cannot get away from the fact that the overwhelming number of people in the recent outbreaks had simply not been vaccinated against mumps.""

It's easy: you just look at the birth date of people who developed mumps in the recent epidemics! That's what the distribution graph shows (that I linked to): did you not see it? Before 1988, there was no mumps vaccine for them to be vaccinated with.

Just in case you further didn't read my previous post properly; as regards the catch-up campaign, the emphasis was on protecting the population from MEASLES, which was why the MR (measles & rubella) vaccine was used. That's a vaccine without a mumps component, and yet another cohort who remained unvaccinated.

Re the reference you quote from 'Infectious Diseases In The South-West' Figure E2... First of all the vaccine uptake rate does not remain "steady". Both the rate in the South-West, and that of the whole of England (yellow and purple lines) falls from a peak of >92-95% down to ~80% in 2003. This is easily enough of a drop to allow the virus to begin circulating in communities once again.

It would also help if you read the text accompanying the figure E2:
"The incidence of mumps has fallen dramatically since the introduction of MMR vaccine, but in recent years outbreaks of mumps have occurred in the cohort of children born in the few years before 1984 (Figure E2) . These children were too old to be offered the MMR vaccine (introduced in 1988) but were susceptible as they had no previous exposure to the virus and therefore did not have natural immunity. The outbreaks started in secondary schools and then moved to colleges, universities and military establishments, as the susceptible group got older. Outbreaks have occurred in these settings in the South West, during 2003 - 2004. (Figure E.3)"

From 1992 to 2000 vaccine uptake remained at 90 per cent. And you are still refusing to acknowledge outbreaks after 2005, and to acknowledge significant evidence of waning immunity -- not just in the introduction of the booster but in the study quoted above. And your assertion that only MR was used in the vaccine uptake campaign is wrong. MMR was used too.

Are you really maintaining that vaccine induced mumps immunity does not wane?

I am quite happy to cite references with accompanying text which meets your approval. More than happy. For example, there's an article in the Times. "Two doses of MMR may not protect from mumps". Not a hint of anti-MMR sentiment anywhere near it -- it was a call to bring the second dose closer to the first dose.

None of it means that vaccine induced mumps immunity does not wane. It does wane, and it means that you are more likely to catch it when it can do more damage. Once again you quote the text: "these children were too old to be offered MMR vaccine". They may well have had it in the catch up campaign. We just don't know. As millions of children were vaccinated, the chances are good that they did. But I don't know, and you don't know, so what's the point of saying it.

Sigh... I do wish you would read my posts properly!

From my earlier one: "It is acknowledged that in at least one study the effectiveness of the mumps component of MMR seems to be below the population level required..."

I also agree that mumps vaccine-induced antibody can wane, but the evidence from the distribution graph shows that the majority of people in the 2004 outbreak HAD NEVER BEEN VACCINATED. You can see on the graph the proportion of people receiving the catch-up vaccine (either MMR or MR), and it is very small in comparison to the non-vaccinated.

Finally, I did not say "only MR vaccine was used" in the catch-up.

Of course there have been further outbreaks, and there will continue to be so until the susceptibles become immune and the virus is no longer able to circulate to the same degree.

There have already been cases of mumps in the younger cohort who haven't been vaccinated as a result of the MMR scare.

Sigh..your graph relies on estimates and eligibility for vaccination based on year of birth. Not on established vaccination status. And you can't rely on year of birth to establish vaccination status.

The outbreaks are continuing despite repeated catch up campaigns. The younger cohort you talk about will have been vaccinated in the 1996 second dose MMR for primary school children.

it's my bedtime

will read tomorrow

goodnight

Ninks, I've got the same problem as your friend. DS2 has not had the mumps jab because of unavailability. I was just planning to let him have an MMR jab at the usual age they give the MMR booster to kids who have had the first MMR jab. So after receiving that he will have had the equivalent of 2 measles, 2 rubella and 1 mumps, the latter of which means he'll have SOME immunity against mumps. I will have to properly look into it though.

BTW, it will be with a heavy heart that I'll be letting him have the MMR. I'm keeping fingers crossed that the fact that he's older means he'll be able to cope better with the triple jab. I really didnt' want my two to have it at 13 months because I have a severely autistic cousin and his mum (who is in the medical profession) is convinced that his problems arose after, or at least were hugely exacerbated by, the MMR being given to him when he was a baby.

Thanks all, (especially Curly, because I can just about understand your post ) I am in total awe of your knowledge and will pass on your thoughts to my friend.

look at Riven's posts, right at the beginning, she had it right really, ages ago

mumps vaccine gives protection but it can wear off, and the worst time to have mumps is adolescence, young manhood

if I do advise it for my sons, it will be before they go off to uni, and would pay for a single if available

others do differently and most times the children are fine, but everything involves a risk, nothing is clear cut

Riven's post is also quite clear, (cheers Riven). I mentioned it today and my friend said something about a risk of encephalopathy? Not sure if that was to do with the illness or the vaccine though. Or maybe I heard wrong and it wasn't that at all.

It does seem to make sense that mumps is milder in young children.

What a minefield though, and I am sorry to hear about your cousin Curly, and your child too Pagwatch.

Mumps as a single vaccine is very scarce at this moment in time. There is a huge push to make single vaccines a thing of the past with the Dept of Health stopping importation and letting licenses run out. It is available in other strains but this is a long drawn out process but is being worked on very hard by dh2uk at the moment. However, the mumps part of the triple MMR vaccine is a very poor component and only approx 50% of children make any sort of immunity to mumps when thaey have the MMR triple, so would there not be a pandemic around with so few children making immunity even though they had 2 lots of MMR? I work in casualty and nearly all the cases that are in the notification book for the last 18 months are from kids that have had 2 MMR triple vaccines!! Strange that is it not??
Mumps is rare and definitely not the killer they make it out to be. In fact I contacted the National Statistics Office, they told me the official stats for mumps deaths; SINCE 1930 64 PEOPLE HAVE DIED FROM MUMPS "RELATED" ILLNESS. THEY COULD NOT TELL ME THE FIGURE WHO HAVE ACTUALLY DIED FROM MUMPS! Why was it ever added to a perfectly good vaccination schedule of measles and rubella???????

"nearly all the cases that are in the notification book for mumps are from kids that have had two mmr vaccines"

"nearly all"?

that's so interesting thank you

Please bear with me, simpleton here

So my DD had a single measles jab last year and now there's no mumps jab. Should we just sit tight until she's old enough for the booster jab and get her that? I'm about to call the clinic but I'd appreciate some input from MNers in the know.

am not "in the know"

I would not worry about giving it to her at all. There's a lot of info on this thread about how dangerous (or not dangerous) mumps is.

ps girls who have had mumps have a lower incidence of ovarian cancer.

hello again, have been away a while. Still looking into the mumps thing. I know that dh2 uk have had news of their mumps and should be getting some soon. Also they have started a number 10 petition. Link is petitions.number10.gov.uk/Single-vaccines/
for those interested.