Why the sudden hostility to anti-vaxxers? (Not here, I mean in the culture at large...)

[Rocaille]

Sorry, this will be garbled: I'm thinking aloud. First of all, I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I don't think I've ever refused a vaccination, either for myself or DD. But in the last year or so, I've noticed a sudden ramping up of hostility towards people who choose not to vaccinate their children, not necessarily on Mumsnet, but certainly in the culture at large. Even the term 'anti-vaxxer' is a new coinage, I think.

I'm posting to find out, has anyone else noticed this, and if so, what do you make of it?

For me, it's reminiscent of the way that, some years back, the trans agenda appeared suddenly at the forefront of public discourse. In my tinfoil-hat-donning moments, I wonder who decides what issues we debate, when we debate them and to what end. Why now for anti-vax? I suppose there have been some serious measles epidemics in recent years, but that doesn't seem to account for the heat and urgency of debate, or the way anti-vaxxers are being characterised as a certain type of person.

Another thing that makes me associate pro-vax with the trans agenda is that it's potentially about the compulsory medical treatment of children, and removing the parent (mother) as the final arbiter of what can and cannot be done to her child's body. That's where I see pro-vax going.

Could this be another dimension of the same agenda, or have I completely lost the plot?

@Passthecherrycoke I'm also not wasting any more energy on this. These threads are a waste of time and it doesn't even make me angry anymore just sad that the selfishness of refusing to vaccinate on the basis that "I'm alright jack" can't even be appreciated by those whose positions have become entrenched against medical science and common morality. But hey ho.

You’re not making any sense I’m afraid. Yes whooping cough vaccine is offered to pregnant women in the U.K. to protect their newborn. It is not offered as standard to other adults.

You say a 4 week old caught whooping cough which was down to irresponsible people not vaccinating. Only the mother could’ve protected him, the mother wasn’t vaccinated. Other adults wouldn’t be vaccinated.

Then you say the mother wasn’t vaccinated because it’s the US and they don’t do it there as standard. So the baby catching whooping cough has nothing to do with someone refusing a vaccine. It’s just bad luck, like a baby catching sepsis.

If it was the U.K. and the mother was an anti vaxxer who refused her vaccine, you’d obviously have a point. She would’ve caused her sons illness

Lweji, it is no news to me that Hep B can be passed on from mother to baby, but surely it makes more sense to test the mother and vaccinate any babies whose mothers have Hep B.

Delivery of hepatitis B vaccine within 24 hours of birth should be a performance indicator for all immunization programmes

That is the only real reason I have found for this vaccination.

The professionals feel that if you will permit this vaccination, you will sign up for all the others too.

As for the whooping cough vaccine, it is one of the least effective vaccines around. And people of my generation were never vaccinated for it and a lot of us never caught it as children, so how on earth can there be herd immunity?

Children are vaccinated. The pregnant woman was not.

The whooping cough vaccine is 80-90% effective according to the cdc.

I'd take those odds.

@PermanentPortakabin
Thank you for your story...

These threads make me sad. Of course there is such a thing as vaccine damage.
Not all "anti vaxxers" looked on the front page of the Sun to make important decisions about their children.

It seems to me that there must be a subset of children who are prone to damage. Labelling, and this wide polarisation of argument isn't helpful.

Children are vaccinated. The pregnant woman was not

It depends on the country.

Lweji, it is no news to me that Hep B can be passed on from mother to baby, but surely it makes more sense to test the mother and vaccinate any babies whose mothers have Hep B.

My understanding is that there is disagreement among experts around whether it is best to test as you describe or just vaccinate the newborn. From what I understand the decision can come down to what the health situation is like generally. If there are a good number of mothers who give birth having had inadequate pre-natal care, they may well not have been tested and flagged, and so they may choose to just vaccinate all newborns as a matter of course, to ensure that none are missed.

There are also those who would say, give it to babies whose mothers fit a certain risk profile, but that isn't necessarily the simplest option for a variety of reasons.

I am not an anti vaxxer but I don’t think the HPV vaccine should be classed in the same category as polio or MMR. Cervical cancer is rare, the vaccine is quite new and there have been scary reports about side effects (that I believe). Also the fact that boys didn’t get it is so misogynistic because it means that good sexual health is not encouraged (leading to a rise in STDs that cannot be vaccinated against) and it means girls have to bear the brunt of any vaccine side effects. I wholly support those who choose not to get it. Since it’s not airborne either and doesn’t work on herd immunity principles, it’s not going to harm anyone else if people don’t have it.

HPV will affect population stats on HPV, it already has, because it's less common even people who don't have the vaccination are less likely to encounter the virus.

There were questions about it when it first came out, some thought it might not as other strains of HPV might just become more common. And I knew people who wanted to wait a while before getting it, to see if there were any unexpected complications. That isn't far out, I know a lot of doctors who avoid newer drugs for the same reason, if there are older ones that will do the job.

But it doesn't have the same kind of issue as things like measles, you can always ask a sexual partner about their vaccinations and get a test, it's not like you will get it if they sneeze on you.

Yes, definitely. You can also have sex using a condom which will reduce the risk of infection and which is very sensible to do anyway if you don’t know a partner’s history. Given the very slight chance of developing cervical cancer anyway, I would definitely opt not to be vaccinated if it was an option. I mean the pill increases the chance of breast cancer but so many women take it and nobody bats an eyelid.

Also, when I had the meningitis jab as a teen, I developed a lengthy flu-like illness that I am pretty sure is attributable to the vaccine and it only protected against one strand of the virus anyway.

Finally, someone mentioned mumps outbreaks at university. Yes, these exist and the people who catch it have nearly always been vaccinated against mumps. Obviously not totally foolproof.

"Finally, someone mentioned mumps outbreaks at university. Yes, these exist and the people who catch it have nearly always been vaccinated against mumps. Obviously not totally foolproof."

Pota is there any evidence that students are less likely to get mumps if they've had an MMR booster at 18, do you know, or are those stats not collected? (I think I have read that the mumps part was always less protective than the other two parts of the vaccine anyway, but wondered if boosters at 18 make a difference to that?)

cherrycoke adults don't need to be vaccinated, there is a booster given at 15/16 that is sufficient for long-term immunity against pertussis. Pregnant women are not vaccinated to protect themselves, but so that the antibodies they produce will hopefully pass to the baby.

The problem is not unvaccinated adults, it is unvaccinated children poking holes in herd immunity so that the people for whom the vaccine is not effective (10-20%) or who are unable to be vaccinated (too young, medically unable) are unprotected.

If everyone who could be vaccinated was then herd immunity would protect the vulnerable including very small babies.

We don't know if the mother was vaccinated and it didn't work, or if she was unable to be vaccinated, or she chose not to be.

As an adult she does not need the vaccine, she is already immune. Children are not born immune, they need the 4-in-1 vaccine to protect against Diphtheria, Pertussis, Polio, and Tetanus. If all the children that could be vaccinated were then pregnant women would not need to be.

Nobody ever talks about antibiotic damage, and allergy to antibiotics is much more common than vaccine reactions. Parents generally give the prescribed antibiotics to their children though, even if it's the first time.

Side note that California brought in a bill that mandated vaccines for attendance at any public or private school, and vaccination rates rose significantly. So parents can't have been THAT worried about vaccine damage...

But the current formulation of the pertussis vaccine offers no long-term immunity against pertussis. That's the problem. Vaccinated carriers of pertussis can and do spread the disease asymptomatically, or show only mild symptoms. Hence the Australian Health Department case study I posted previously about the vaccinated nurse spreading pertussis to four newborns during a single shift on a maternity ward.

Here's another study published by the Australian Department of Health, an analysis of a pertussis epidemic in Western Australia, which focuses specifically on who is spreading whooping cough to infants. (For those who don't click, fully vaccinated siblings were the most important sources of pertussis infection in babies under 6 months, particularly fully vaccinated children aged 2 -3.) The vaccine appears to offer personal protection only, and for a short period.

The study also concludes: 'In the face of widespread vaccination with a less effective acellular pertussis vaccine, it seems likely that notification rates will remain high in children.'

www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-cdi3803c.htm

It is unclear how such a vaccine can contribute to herd immunity.

Yes, there are figures showing that you are less likely to get mumps if you have been vaccinated, but there are still outbreaks almost every year and vaccinated people still catch it.

I am not an anti vaxxer but I don’t think the HPV vaccine should be classed in the same category as polio or MMR. Cervical cancer is rare, the vaccine is quite new and there have been scary reports about side effects (that I believe). Also the fact that boys didn’t get it is so misogynistic because it means that good sexual health is not encouraged (leading to a rise in STDs that cannot be vaccinated against) and it means girls have to bear the brunt of any vaccine side effects. I wholly support those who choose not to get it. Since it’s not airborne either and doesn’t work on herd immunity principles, it’s not going to harm anyone else if people don’t have it.

I agree with this. And have I got this wrong but doesn't the HPV virus come from contact with sperm? Think I read that somewhere, though willing to be told I'm wrong. I remember thinking if that's the case it's very misogynistic and homophobic ( assuming all girls are heterosexual)

Boys should be vaccinated against HPV for their own protection. HPV doesn't just cause cervical cancer.

Based on data from 2011 to 2015, about 42,700 HPV-associated cancers occur in the United States each year: about 24,400 among women, and about 18,300 among men

https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/index.htm

I agree with this. And have I got this wrong but doesn't the HPV virus come from contact with sperm? Think I read that somewhere, though willing to be told I'm wrong. I remember thinking if that's the case it's very misogynistic and homophobic ( assuming all girls are heterosexual)

I have never heard a virus described as misogynist or homophobic before. I think you need some kind of brain and ability to form intent.

But women can and do spread HPV to men.

Pota is there any evidence that students are less likely to get mumps if they've had an MMR booster at 18, do you know, or are those stats not collected?

Yes.

Effectiveness of a Third Dose of MMR Vaccine for Mumps Outbreak Control | NEJM

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa17033099_

That study, together with her friend having to delay uni for year because of bad mumps, was why DD had a third dose of mmr.

Hang on. I just found this on a website

You can get HPV by having vaginal, anal, or oral sex with someone who has the virus. It is most commonly spread during vaginal or anal sex. HPV can be passed even when an infected person has no signs or symptoms.

So we're vaccinating girls against a virus that they get from sperm? And we're not vaccinating boys?

Well obviously only vaccinating girls is homophobic. Because it assumes they're heterosexual. It also assumes they're going to actually be having sex, like there's no opt out. It's just taken as a given. It also definitely implies there'll be no condom (and as we know men love their sex without a condom, wouldn't want anything to get in the way of that)

It's not a virus you 'get from sperm', it's spread by contact of infected areas.

'HPV is easily spread from sexual skin-to-skin contact with someone who has it. You get it when your vulva, vagina, cervix, penis, or anus touches someone else’s genitals or mouth and throat — usually during sex. HPV can be spread even if no one cums, and even if a penis doesn’t go inside the vagina/anus/mouth.'

www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/stds-hiv-safer-sex/hpv

But although some of your comments are therefore inaccurate, boys should be getting the vaccine too.

Boys get it in some places. It seems to be way it is going as the data comes in on the effects in terms of the population.

Yes, that whole narrative about depression being a chemical imbalance that the drug corrects is just untrue.

No, it is not. It might not be true for everyone but that doesn't mean it doesn't work at all.