Novemberbaby101112 and emonslemons, I?m with you. I know it?s an awful illness and no mother wants to risk their baby getting it, but choices about medicines in pregnancy have to be taken rationally and based on evidence. It can?t be made through fear. The vaccine they are going to give is called Repevax, which is never normally administered to under 3s and not the one they are giving in the US. It's the pre-school booster that kids get here and it's not recommended for under 3s. Why aren?t they using the 5-1 that you get for 2 month old babies? It better not be a cost decision.
Repevax is not advised for pregnant women because it's never been trialed on pregnant women. I'm so nervous when the info they are putting into the public domain is so one-sided, because it's not factual ? they can?t possibly say there are no risks when they don?t know the risks. I want all the facts so that I can make my decision and I really want to avoid being scared by the media coverage into making a decision that's not right.
I think we've got to weigh it all up against the rates. In Scotland there have been 65 cases this year in under 3 month olds when around 60, 000 babies are born a year. So even with very conservative guesswork less than 0.2% get it, and there will be variances as to how severe it is in each of those cases (that's not to say I'd be ok with a new baby getting it at all, even if it was mild). But I find it odd that they don't say how many were under 2 months, because there's a 95% rate of the 2 month immunisation for babies in Scotland, so how many of the 65 cases were actually in immunised kids between the age of 2-3 months?
I'm confused. My gut instinct tells me to stick to my guns about a drug-free pregnancy, but I don't know. I think I'll discuss with my midwife and see what she thinks. She's very pragmatic and would tell me what-she-would-do type of thing, rather than standard advice. I hate having this decision to make.