If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
massive surge of measles cases
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6970525.stm
that's why you have vaccinations, so even if some unlucky person does get it, it doesn't spread.....
last year an 8month old died from it because her siblings weren't immunised
*awaits the backlash from people thinking mmr is dangerous*
i work in a hackney school and quite a few kids there aren't immunised against it - a recent trip to UCH to see the professor of immunology with some year 9s (including his daughter, how we got the trip) helped though
that's why you have vaccinations, so even if some unlucky person does get it, it doesn't spread.....
last year an 8month old died from it because her siblings weren't immunised
*awaits the backlash from people thinking mmr is dangerous*
i work in a hackney school and quite a few kids there aren't immunised against it - a recent trip to UCH to see the professor of immunology with some year 9s (including his daughter, how we got the trip) helped though
0
Comments
I think that's a little unfair.
If i were a parent i'd have certainly been concerned when the doctor who originally made the claims about the MMR vaccine, made his claims.
The MMR is widely seen as more effective than the single jabs, not only do lots of parents not get all three jabs but it seems better to get it all in one.
The MMR has been given to tens of millions of kids, everyone from the head of the WHO downwards has poured over all the data and there really isnt any decent evidence to suggest it isnt as relatively safe as it can be.
Though of course I do really feel for the parents of kids who appeared (or do in very rare cases) to have reactions to it, they must feel terrible.
And of course it does come with some risk (although a very small one) but then the risks of not having it are considerably higher.
In fact the Japanese one showed higher levels of autism in those who hadn't had MMR.
Funnily enough, the evidence that Measles is dangerous/deadly is overwealming.
Some may say theyd rather the theoretical risk of catching a disease, than the risk when they purposely take their child to be injected with something.
Now theyre even putting chicken pox vaccine in the jabs too. How long till all parents are shit scared of the 'killer' chicken pox?
All im saying is that if they offered the measles vaccine seperatly, I think youd catch all the ones who were frightened of the MMR, and if protecting herd immunity is the desired result, then that can only be a good thing.
the 3 illnesses covered my MMR without vaccination would be prevalent enough to put people ith weakened immune systems at risk, it doesn't just protect the original recipient
i know people who have had mumps at university, it isn't nice and can kill children, it still does in poor counries - and think of what it does to men :nervous:
and rubella isnt harmful in anyone, APART from that as it spreads very fast a pregnent mother can pass it to her unborn foetus at less than 20 weeks which causes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_rubella_syndrome - the point of vaccination is to prevent spread through the population
sheer selfishness
I'm not sure its selfishness. It may be ill-informed, but if for a second I thought the triple MMR would put my children at risk they wouldn't have it. I'm not sure that's a selfish viewpoint...
Is it selfish to do what you think is best for your child? It's not as if you put anyone else at risk - provided that they have the jabs.
Misguided, now that's the expression that I would use. It seems that people put more store in the unfounded allegations of one doctor over just about every other specialist in the world.
One doctor and pretty much every single newspaper and TV channel.
I think Budda is right though, the media kicked up a storm instead of saying this was a minority view and others disagreed.
of course what you think is best for your child is important, so is everyone elses child
the attitude of "let someone else do it" is what causes easily preventible diseases to spread in the western world
But they don't put safety first. They just don't realise that because of the media's obsession with bad news stories...
To be fair they had to report it. Once the genie is out of the bottle people won't believe the "truth" because it comes from the Govt and they just aren't trusted anymore.
I still think that the ultimate blame must lie with the Doctor who initiated the whole disaster.
But you don't put anyone else's child at risk by not vaccinating your own. They put their children at risk themselves.
My kids are safe. They have the jabs, no question.
some vaccinations like rubella can't protect the 'people' it could possibly kill or disable since they are in the foetus at the time it does the damage and removes the risks of mothers coming in contact with the virus for which there's every chance the foetus could get even if the mother is vaccinated herself
and the measles one prevents children who are too young to have the vaccine from catching it (as happened last year with an 8month old)
I disagree. I think they are both important, but if it were allowed here then surely it would just set a precedence then for providing the treatments that patients prefer due to popular misinformation over that which is accepted medical best treatment.
P'haps I phrased it badly. But as a parent I'd weigh up the risks, and as I'm ill-informed, and givent he way it was reported I'd put autism higher than the risk of measles.
* I'm actually not that badly informed as my wife works in medical research albeit on different areas.
perhaps, but but the way it was reported was poor (and if its one man's opinion which everyone else disagrees with I'm not sure they had to report it anymore than they report that some people belief AIDs can be cured by eating lots of Vitamin C)
I'd probably agree, but I don't think the media can avoid all the blame.
Exactly, when he made his claims. Certainly not years later when it'd been rubbished universally by the scientific community.