Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Vaccinating babies to save adults

29 replies

Freckle · 23/01/2006 11:32

My children are beyond the age suggested in this article, but what do you parents with under 2s think about this plan? Don't babies have enough pumped into them at an early age?

If I had children of this age, I don't think I'd subject them to yet another vaccination, especially when you consider that there are many strains of flu and there isn't a universal vaccination for them.

OP posts:
Original poster
Freckle · 23/01/2006 11:34

Sorry, forgot to put in link to article!

OP posts:
NotAPooEatingZebra · 23/01/2006 14:29

Don't have a problem with it.

edam · 23/01/2006 14:38

In theory, vaccinating babies would help them by reducing the potential pool of infection. Fewer adults with flu = fewer people infecting babies. So no, I wouldn't have a problem with it, providing the vaccine was safe and was not contra-indicated for my own child given his individual medical history.

I'm having ds single-jabbed, by the way, so I'm not completely pro-all vaccinations.

NotAPooEatingZebra · 23/01/2006 14:39

I think expatinscotland gets flu jabs for her children, says it's standard to do in the usa, to protect the kdis themselves.
I would not choose to get the flu jab for my kids , btw, but don't mind it being recommended.

Angeliz · 23/01/2006 14:40

I object strongly, seehere

DD certainly won't be getting it.

misdee · 23/01/2006 14:42

this is one i actually agree with. we will be pushing to get the jabs yearly once peter isout of hospital.

Nbg · 23/01/2006 14:43

I certainly won't be immunizing the next LO if it comes in by then.

uwila · 23/01/2006 15:01

I actually think the little ones - as unpleasant as it may be -- are better off actually getting the flu and then having natural immunity.

I am also opposed to the chicken pox vaccine for this reason.

sharklet · 23/01/2006 15:10

As DH is a US Serviceman we get access to US Military medecine as well as our regular NHS. They offer loads more vaccinations than we do - Varicella (Chicken Pox) being one Pneumococcyl being another and the flu vaccine and a few others too.

DD and I have our medical treatment through the NHS. But we do have to allow the military Dr's access to her records, they nearly died the last time I too them up to the US clinic. When I told the medic that over here often we actively try to get chicken pox when kids are little to build an immunity she began to back away. They thought I was mad that I hadn't given her all the jabs they have.

I think if a child is vulnerable for any reason that it is fair enough to offer the jab, it doesn't mean you have to take them up on it.

sharklet · 23/01/2006 15:12

I'm all for building up a natural immunity myself though I have to say.

Marina · 23/01/2006 15:14

I see the point about building a natural immunity but if I had a child in the relevant age range I would not be as concerned about this as some of the vaccines they are currently offered...
Agree about CP totally Uwila. Only children or specific risk of complication from the CP virus, or with a family member at risk, should be offered this one

Pixel · 23/01/2006 15:29

I'm afraid the arguement that this will stop grandparents catching flu from their grandchildren doesn't wash with me. Aren't we supposed to protect the younger generation? If I had a grandchild I certainly would want to risk his or her health for my own benefit! We don't know for sure that it is completely safe for little ones. Also, will the children have to have an annual jab? We are always hearing about how quickly colds and flu mutate into different strains. This is the main reason why there is still no cure for the common cold.

Pixel · 23/01/2006 15:31

Sorry, wouldn't want to risk his or her health!

bunny3 · 23/01/2006 23:18

no chance of them getting near my baby with a flu jab. not unless it is to be of direct benefit to her and necessary to ensure her health.

dinny · 23/01/2006 23:21

unbelievable, saw this in paper earlier and couldn't believe it. vaccinating babies so adults don't get flu... More looniness.

getbakainyourjimjams · 24/01/2006 09:00

I think there's ethical issues with this- a child is taking the risk and the potential benefit is going to someone else. Who is going to pay for the children who are vaccine damaged by this (because some will be, no vaccination is 100% safe).

Have particular problems with doing this with the flu jab as its effectiveness will vary each year and can never be 100% predicted (one year they might get it right, another year completely wrong and so the children will be taking the risk without any potential benefit for the adults even).

Flu jabs sometimes contain thimerosal (and has been a big thimerosal exposure for US kids), presumably a paediatric jab wouldn't but who knows?

expatinscotland · 24/01/2006 09:08

I have absolutely no problem w/it at all. Influenza vaccine is part of the schedule of routine vaccinations for babies and children in the US, and I'm MUCH prefer them to have a vaccine than get the flu.

The flu is far from unpleasant, it's the most common cause of pneumonia.

It's probably far more common for a baby to become infected by an older, school age sibling.

I have my children vaccinated for flu every year - I pay for it privately. Also had DD1 - and am having DD2 - vaccinated against pneumoccocal meningitis. Again, standard course in the US.

I never quite understood this 'natural immunity' business, personally.

expatinscotland · 24/01/2006 09:09

I purchased a thimersol-free one. I even read the leaflet enclosed in the box the doctor handed me right in the office.

FairyMum · 24/01/2006 09:16

I don't have a problem with it. I would probably vaccinate. I believe in building up natural immunity too, but I am happy to wait until they are 2 to get the flu as it can be so nasty.

mummytosteven · 24/01/2006 09:17

eh? I am really baffled by this. Surely making sure "older people" can access the flu jab is the answer, if the rationale is to protect them rather than infants. I don't understand the "natural immunity" argument wrt flu, as surely the virus mutates from year to year.

FairyMum · 24/01/2006 09:19

I think by having a few infections you build up general immunity to infections. My children, for example, are always sick more or less constantly the first couple of years in nursery. Colds, fevers etc etc. But after the age of 2 they are hardly ever ill.

Angeliz · 24/01/2006 09:30

mummytosteven, apparently 30% of old people don't go to get their jab, now they may have their reasons but babies don't have a choice do they? (Well they do as alot just won't get it, me included)
Expat, the thing with natural immunity as i see it (but someone correct me if i'm wrong, i'm not a Doctor),is that, if i get chicken pox, i'm then immune for life, if i get measles, i'm immune for life. With jabs the immunity eventually wears off and lots of these diseases are much worse as an adult.
I'm not anti jabs though and my dd's do get most, just makes me think am i really doing the best for them long term?

coppertop · 24/01/2006 09:35

I decided not to let my 5yr-old have the flu jab this winter. I'm certainly not about to let a baby of mine have it just so that someone else can reap all the benefit.

satine · 24/01/2006 09:38

Thing is, though, whilst chicken pox etc is usually mild in children, I had the flu once and my god I have never felt so ill in my life. I remember thinking at the time I can quite see how this kills the young and old, it was awful. So regardless of the community at large, it's an illness you really don't want your children to get, believe me.

Angeliz · 24/01/2006 09:39

I do wonder if all the people making decisions for our babies have babies undr 2 themselves. It's alot easier to be objective when it's not going to affect yout family anyway.

Swipe left for the next trending thread