My children were both quite ill for a couple of days with it. It was pretty unpleasant.
I've thought about this a bit and tbh I can see some of the points people in favour of deliberate exposure are making - obviously it is better to have the illness when you're a child as I believe it is less likely that you'll be severely ill, than when you're an adult - is that correct?
Also most children do get it at some point, so in a sense it's bringing forward the inevitable
However. I think it's very counterintuitive and for that reason, I think it's a bad idea. Deliberate exposure to any illness is wrong, I think. Our instincts are there for a reason and avoiding illness is a very strong one.
I think going against that is very rarely a good idea. I'm not sure why, but that's how I feel about it. And knowing that my child was ill because I had deliberately exposed him, would be very uncomfortable for me - it was uncomfortable enough how I felt towards my friend, whose cavalier attitude in bringing her child to school and letting him run about and play in the playground, caused a huge outbreak which affected my child at a time when it was very inconvenient for us as a family.
She didn't know it would be a bad time,(is there ever a good time?) but she was an idiot to do it, exposing the entire class/school.
I just think deliberate exposure to illness is a very bad thing. If it's a vaccine and it prevents deadly or serious illness, with a very mild reaction to the vaccine, then I think that's worth doing usually. If it's the same illness with the same likelihood of severity then WTAF, basically.
When someone r eaches adulthood without catching it then I'd probably suggest the vaccine is a good idea, at that point.