Whooping cough making a come back becoz people don't vaccinate

[TattiesMum]

do many newborns come into contact with cattle?

I am not disputing that these diseases are fatal, only that they do not need to be vaccinated in such young children. I repeat, i agree with vaccination, i just do not understand why they are given so young or so frequently,

I do not know any newborns in close proximity to cattle, and if they were farm babies etc surely special allowance should be made for that, rather than every child being vaccinated at 2 months old for a disease that they will (probably) never come into contact with and certainly not at 2 months old...

A great many newborns come into contact with cats and dogs ... and Diptheria can also be contracted from untreated organic dairy products (which adults eat) and then passed onto newborns by droplet infection ... even if the parents avoid such foodstuffs there is no telling if the man who sneezes in the shopping mall as he walks past you hasn't recently been to an urban farm or drinks unpasteurised milk is there?

That's the whole point of vaccination - we cannot live in total isolation so that we avoid any chance of coming into contact with someone carrying/infected by a disease/infection.

 

[feeble]

but we arent debating adults being vaccinated against diptheria, we are debating why a newborn needs to be vaccinated so early

If your growing up in an environment where all the adults are protected, whats the rush?

Cats and dogs are Not cattle and from what i can see, they do not carry diptheria, its far more usual for it to be spread in dirty, contaminated water.

 

[feeble]

plus you have cited a decline of diptheria since the 1940's, but they only routinely adminstered the vaccine in the 60s...

so what happened in the 20 years in between? Surely more answers lie there as the reason why the illness began to subside rather than a vaccine routinely introduced 20 years later? if you give another 5? 10? years to actually get a 'herd immunity' you are looking at 30years after the decline of diptheria before the vaccine really began to have any affect on the general population, so how can it be responsible?

 

[smelly07]

diptheria cases actually began to climb during the 1940's because of world war 2 and wide spread vaccination started in 1941 over the next 10 years the cases of diptheria dropped to almost 0%..........illnesses are coming back into circulation now because people arent vaccinating and the longer children are left without having their immunisations the longer they are at risk personally i dont feel 2 months is too young x

 

[nosocks]

This is an honest question...
What makes a baby 'too young' to have vaccinations?
I follow a different schedule to the uk- I live in Kenya- and I have found my LO much more distressed having recent vaccinations than the ones she had when she was tiny (she's 10 months)

I have another question- what are peoples opinions of chicken pox vaccination- my LO can have this next month. Having come from the uk I never even knew there was such a thing! Having done a bit of reading- it seems as if the uk is in the minority- most countries do it.
I guess in the uk you could get it privately- but how many parents know about it?

 

[TattiesMum]

plus you have cited a decline of diptheria since the 1940's, but they only routinely adminstered the vaccine in the 60s...

so what happened in the 20 years in between? Surely more answers lie there as the reason why the illness began to subside rather than a vaccine routinely introduced 20 years later? if you give another 5? 10? years to actually get a 'herd immunity' you are looking at 30years after the decline of diptheria before the vaccine really began to have any affect on the general population, so how can it be responsible?

I'm afraid not ... the UK instituted a widespread vaccination programme against diptheria in 1941/42 and cases began to decline slowly over the next few decades as more and more of the population received the vaccine.

Newborn babies do not live in isolation .. they meet other family members, often come into contact with children who have not been vaccinated for a variety of reasons, are taken to clinics, doctors' surgeries, shops and schools to collect older siblings - all of which present an element of risk in terms of cross infection

I'm not judging you at all for deferring vaccination - In fairness it wasn't a choice I had to grapple with as when I had my babies immunisation didn't start until 12 weeks. But in all honesty I can't see a problem with protecting a young baby as early as possible ... Where I live all newborns are vaccinated against TB within 48 hours of birth and I can only see that as a good thing

Also I do think that it is important that you recognise that you have the luxury of deferring immunisation in relative safety precisely because the generations of parents who have gone before you committed to having their children vaccinated.

My grandparents' generation did not have that luxury - babies and young children died routinely from these diseases and vaccinations were welcomed with open arms.

I work as a Funeral Director and believe me a read through the detailed ledgers for the late 19th to mid 20th centuries makes for depressing reading in terms of the number of children who died from what are now rare and preventable diseases.... and the scary thing is that it would only take a mass opt out of the vaccination programme and a few decades before those figures started to rise again.

I guess it annoys me that the parents who choose to defer vaccination or not to vaccinate at all often take the moral high ground whilst effectively riding on the coat tails of the majority of parents who do vaccinate.

 

[feeble]

Firstly; Massive respect for being a funeral director, you are effectively a shoulder for people in great grief, deal with things most people would consider 'icky' and i believe have a both fascinating and so so necessary job. Much, much respect x (p.s have you seen the film Burke and Hare? about the first funeral directors? tis funny/interesting and begs the question, what on earth did we all do before?)

Anyway... On with the vax issue

A widespread campaign began in the 1940s but it took years for them to vaccinate enough people to get it up to the 95% required for herd immunity, it would have started with the vunerable and the young and then slowly moved through the system over a period of many, many years.

This is why i cannot believe that the vaccination program ALONE was the reason why these diseases began to die out, i think a lot of it would have been to do with the end of the war and the rebuilding of our country, something which created better hygiene and standard of living for all but the very rich who found themselves knocked down a peg or two!

It was the beginning of the NHS, in the late 40s that saw the introduction of a vaccination program aimed at every young child to be born, which again, took a few years to reach every county/doctors surgery etc

my nana was first vaccinated in the late 50s, though her children had begun to be vaccinated a wee while before that, they lived in a slum in Liverpool which is probably why they were some of the last.


I can understand a child being vaccinated against a disease that is rife in the population, i can understand a newborn being vaccinated against a disease under extenuating circumstances like living on a farm or in close proximity to cattle, but in a society where most adults are immune to a disease, and therefore will not be passing it on, it seems strange to vaccinate so young.

Norway vaccinate at 3/5 and 8? months and do not seem to have outbreaks of diptheria occuring, despite parts of Norway being incredibly rural and full of cattle

I would say it is a necessary vaccine but given too young and too quickly, easier to spread it out and allow the body to recover.

Of course it is personal choice, but a disease that has not killed people in over 40 years is not going to cause me to inject a new born with heavy toxins, heavy metals and virus's (albeit a dead virus) I see no purpose for that.

 

[Natsku]

I think the 3rd vaccine in Norway is done at a year, is here anyway and I think we follow the same schedule.

 

[TattiesMum]

Thank you ... I love my job It's hugely rewarding and a real privilege to be able to do it

I do see your point regarding 8 weeks seeming very young but, on the other hand, when I was born in the mid 60's babies didn't receive the old Dpt vaccine until they were a year old and even then whooping cough was a major problem with LOs under that age - I myself spent my first Christmas in hospital with it at just 4 months old

As the age for vaccination moved back so the rate of infection dropped. Lets face it young children and babies are germ magnets

It was the same with the Rubella vaccination - when I was a teen girls were inoculated against Rubella at 13. The theory was that this would protect their unborn children in future pregnancies. However the uptake of it was quite low (teens being what they are LOL) and younger children were of course unprotected and still getting and passing it on.....thus unborn babies were still being put at risk

Since they developed the MMR and started vaccinating one year olds the risk of a pregnant woman contracting Rubella has decreased dramatically ... and the risks to an unborn child exposed to Rubella in 1st Tri are considerably more than the general (and often unsubstantiated) risks from the vaccination.

In both of these cases the rate of infection (and thus the risk of catching the disease) has fallen when vaccination ages dropped - which, for me, is sufficient to justify early inoculation.... And actually Norway had an outbreak of Diphtheria only 3 years ago

 

[feeble]

Yes it's a big shame that the whooping cough vaccine is not available seperately...

 

[JASMAK]

but we arent debating adults being vaccinated against diptheria, we are debating why a newborn needs to be vaccinated so early

If your growing up in an environment where all the adults are protected, whats the rush?

Cats and dogs are Not cattle and from what i can see, they do not carry diptheria, its far more usual for it to be spread in dirty, contaminated water.

I know you said you were 'ignoring my posts' but I just wanted to point out one thing here...if your child is growing up in an environment that is vaccinated, then I agree (I think - lol) that would be fine...BUT, because people are not vaccinating, we can no longer say this, kwim?

 

[TattiesMum]

but we arent debating adults being vaccinated against diptheria, we are debating why a newborn needs to be vaccinated so early

If your growing up in an environment where all the adults are protected, whats the rush?

Cats and dogs are Not cattle and from what i can see, they do not carry diptheria, its far more usual for it to be spread in dirty, contaminated water.

I know you said you were 'ignoring my posts' but I just wanted to point out one thing here...if your child is growing up in an environment that is vaccinated, then I agree (I think - lol) that would be fine...BUT, because people are not vaccinating, we can no longer say this, kwim?

This is especially relevant since the opening up of the old Soviet Union .... At one point the WHO were confident that the total eradication of Diphtheria was in sight - then with the break up of the old USSR it became obvious that the soviets had been neglecting vaccination for some time and that outbreaks of Diphtheria in the old, now independent, soviet countries were distressingly commonplace.

With the peoples of those countries now able to move freely around the rest of the world, the disease spread again - with those in developed countries who refuse vaccination (and youngsters who are not yet vaccinated) being at most risk.

The reason that 8 weeks is now the chosen age is because before this age a newborn's immune system is not developed enough to produce the antibodies needed for immunity. It is also the age at which any immunity provided by the mother during gestation is wearing off .... BF cannot protect a baby against Diphtheria, Tetanus or Whooping cough (although studies do show that BF enhances the baby's ability to produce antibodies when the vaccine has been given)

 

[indy and lara]

I am 100% happy with our decision to vacinate E. We delayed her MMR until 15 months as she had a few months of awful teething and didn't want to add anything else into the mix.

People are allowed to make their own decisions about vacination but I hate how there is always a suggestion in these types of threads that those who do the opposite of you are somehow ignorant of tha facts (happens on both sides). We all make our own decisions and weigh up the risks we think are acceptable.

 

[feeble]

but we arent debating adults being vaccinated against diptheria, we are debating why a newborn needs to be vaccinated so early

If your growing up in an environment where all the adults are protected, whats the rush?

Cats and dogs are Not cattle and from what i can see, they do not carry diptheria, its far more usual for it to be spread in dirty, contaminated water.

I know you said you were 'ignoring my posts' but I just wanted to point out one thing here...if your child is growing up in an environment that is vaccinated, then I agree (I think - lol) that would be fine...BUT, because people are not vaccinating, we can no longer say this, kwim?

This is especially relevant since the opening up of the old Soviet Union .... At one point the WHO were confident that the total eradication of Diphtheria was in sight - then with the break up of the old USSR it became obvious that the soviets had been neglecting vaccination for some time and that outbreaks of Diphtheria in the old, now independent, soviet countries were distressingly commonplace.

With the peoples of those countries now able to move freely around the rest of the world, the disease spread again - with those in developed countries who refuse vaccination (and youngsters who are not yet vaccinated) being at most risk.

The reason that 8 weeks is now the chosen age is because before this age a newborn's immune system is not developed enough to produce the antibodies needed for immunity. It is also the age at which any immunity provided by the mother during gestation is wearing off .... BF cannot protect a baby against Diphtheria, Tetanus or Whooping cough (although studies do show that BF enhances the baby's ability to produce antibodies when the vaccine has been given)

Would it not be best, in that case, to have some sort of vaccination program connected to migration/travel, most people already check to see if they need to get vaccinated against certain illnesses before travelling to certain countries, it would not be too hard to issue a mandatory request that visitors to the UK (for example) were up to date with vaccination or could offer some explanation why not -e.g vaccination damage due to other vaccinations.

I think you would only push the idea of a child being vaccinated at 8 weeks, if you firmly believe there is no risk frm such an early vaccination and I do not believe that is the case at all.

With lifelong issues like asthma and excema on the rise since the introduction of the 5in1, it's certainly got to be heavily considered.

Mostly I dont understand Why so young? Why so many? And why in such quick succession? Let's say for arguments sake we decided to continue vaccinating at 8 weeks, can we not leave further vaccination for a few months? Can we Not then do 1 vaccination a session rather than 3 which is the currently recommendation here?

There is more to the currently vaccination schedule than safety and protection of the child, it's about ease and getting people vaccinated before the end of early maternity leave.

 

[Natasha2605]

This is an honest question...
What makes a baby 'too young' to have vaccinations?
I follow a different schedule to the uk- I live in Kenya- and I have found my LO much more distressed having recent vaccinations than the ones she had when she was tiny (she's 10 months)

I have another question- what are peoples opinions of chicken pox vaccination- my LO can have this next month. Having come from the uk I never even knew there was such a thing! Having done a bit of reading- it seems as if the uk is in the minority- most countries do it.
I guess in the uk you could get it privately- but how many parents know about it?

I found it a million times worse watching Summer get her MMR at 14 months than I did her ones at 6 or 8 weeks (or whenever it was). But I suppose it's more about how it does or doesn't help them (opinion based) rather than how they emotionally react at the time.

As for the chicken pox vaccine. I didn't know there was one until recently. I'm now seriously considering getting Maci vaccinated against it whenever I can because Summer took it when she was 11 months and honestly, it was the worse three weeks of my life, she took them so so bad that I'm not prepared to put another child through it if I can help, something I do need to look into more though. I didn't realise most countries do it, I would presume the UK doesn't because it's not seen as a serious illness and because it is so common in childhood that doctors just see it as ''one of those things''. In fact a doctor I took Summer to likened it to a sickness bug.

 

[TattiesMum]

Would it not be best, in that case, to have some sort of vaccination program connected to migration/travel, most people already check to see if they need to get vaccinated against certain illnesses before travelling to certain countries, it would not be too hard to issue a mandatory request that visitors to the UK (for example) were up to date with vaccination or could offer some explanation why not -e.g vaccination damage due to other vaccinations.

I think you would only push the idea of a child being vaccinated at 8 weeks, if you firmly believe there is no risk frm such an early vaccination and I do not believe that is the case at all.

With lifelong issues like asthma and excema on the rise since the introduction of the 5in1, it's certainly got to be heavily considered.

Mostly I dont understand Why so young? Why so many? And why in such quick succession? Let's say for arguments sake we decided to continue vaccinating at 8 weeks, can we not leave further vaccination for a few months? Can we Not then do 1 vaccination a session rather than 3 which is the currently recommendation here?

There is more to the currently vaccination schedule than safety and protection of the child, it's about ease and getting people vaccinated before the end of early maternity leave.

Oh my ... a lot of points to answer! LOL

First of all as a country we cannot possibly ask visitors and migrants to present proof of immunisation before allowing entry when it's not even law that our own citizens have to have the vaccinations .... we can't even insist that our own citizens have vaccinations before travelling abroad, or refuse them re-entry to the UK if they appear ill on their return and that doesn't even begin to address the matter of illegal immigrants (a large number of whom come from Eastern Europe).

Personally I believe that the rising rates of excema and asthma are down to environmental issues rather than vaccination and there are no large scale scientific studies that contradict that view

I've already explained why so young - because it makes sense to vaccinate (ie protect a baby) from the earliest moment possible (ie as soon as their immune system is mature enough to produce effective antibodies).

The answer as to 'why so quickly' is simply that the time scales used ensure that the maximum number of antibodies possible are produced - in other words extensive studies and testing have shown that this schedule provides the highest level of immunity that lasts for the longest time .... it really has nothing to do with maternity leave at all

 

[smelly07]

plus you have cited a decline of diptheria since the 1940's, but they only routinely adminstered the vaccine in the 60s...

so what happened in the 20 years in between? Surely more answers lie there as the reason why the illness began to subside rather than a vaccine routinely introduced 20 years later? if you give another 5? 10? years to actually get a 'herd immunity' you are looking at 30years after the decline of diptheria before the vaccine really began to have any affect on the general population, so how can it be responsible?

I'm afraid not ... the UK instituted a widespread vaccination programme against diptheria in 1941/42 and cases began to decline slowly over the next few decades as more and more of the population received the vaccine.

Newborn babies do not live in isolation .. they meet other family members, often come into contact with children who have not been vaccinated for a variety of reasons, are taken to clinics, doctors' surgeries, shops and schools to collect older siblings - all of which present an element of risk in terms of cross infection

I'm not judging you at all for deferring vaccination - In fairness it wasn't a choice I had to grapple with as when I had my babies immunisation didn't start until 12 weeks. But in all honesty I can't see a problem with protecting a young baby as early as possible ... Where I live all newborns are vaccinated against TB within 48 hours of birth and I can only see that as a good thing

Also I do think that it is important that you recognise that you have the luxury of deferring immunisation in relative safety precisely because the generations of parents who have gone before you committed to having their children vaccinated.

My grandparents' generation did not have that luxury - babies and young children died routinely from these diseases and vaccinations were welcomed with open arms.

I work as a Funeral Director and believe me a read through the detailed ledgers for the late 19th to mid 20th centuries makes for depressing reading in terms of the number of children who died from what are now rare and preventable diseases.... and the scary thing is that it would only take a mass opt out of the vaccination programme and a few decades before those figures started to rise again.

I guess it annoys me that the parents who choose to defer vaccination or not to vaccinate at all often take the moral high ground whilst effectively riding on the coat tails of the majority of parents who do vaccinate.

100% agree and well said particularly the bits in bold

 

[feeble]

Oh my ... a lot of points to answer! LOL

First of all as a country we cannot possibly ask visitors and migrants to present proof of immunisation before allowing entry when it's not even law that our own citizens have to have the vaccinations .... we can't even insist that our own citizens have vaccinations before travelling abroad, or refuse them re-entry to the UK if they appear ill on their return and that doesn't even begin to address the matter of illegal immigrants (a large number of whom come from Eastern Europe).

Yes I agree, not possible x

Personally I believe that the rising rates of excema and asthma are down to environmental issues rather than vaccination and there are no large scale scientific studies that contradict that view

I disagree, after all though our carbon footprint is large now, the smog and unsanitary conditions before the 20th century would make this point moot.

I've already explained why so young - because it makes sense to vaccinate (ie protect a baby) from the earliest moment possible (ie as soon as their immune system is mature enough to produce effective antibodies).

Again I disagree, I do not believe a 8 week old child's immune system is anywhere near mature enough to deal with this amount and intensity of vaccine. Let's not forget that no allowance is given to babies who are born late or early, it is just a blanket 8 weeks. One would think that all babies are different... And such a blanket rule for all would be (at least some of the time) not appropriate.

The answer as to 'why so quickly' is simply that the time scales used ensure that the maximum number of antibodies possible are produced - in other words extensive studies and testing have shown that this schedule provides the highest level of immunity that lasts for the longest time .... it really has nothing to do with maternity leave at all

I would love to see a study suggesting this, I have to say I have never come across one, it is recommended that a child be vaccinated against these diseases at least 5 times before the age of six, but I would love to see an accurate study showing that giving them so young and in quick succession was more effective than spreading them out.

 

[TattiesMum]

Personally I believe that the rising rates of excema and asthma are down to environmental issues rather than vaccination and there are no large scale scientific studies that contradict that view

I disagree, after all though our carbon footprint is large now, the smog and unsanitary conditions before the 20th century would make this point moot.

I think that it's important to remember just how high childhood morbidity WAS before (and indeed during almost the first half of) the 20th century ... children with asthma and weak chests simply died; excema wasn't life threatening and therefore was viewed as being of little importance. Also when I speak of environmental issues I largely mean our high use of soaps, chemical cleaners, hormones and additives in foods etc rather than carbon footprint per se - the increases in allergies have risen proportionally alongside the everyday exposure to these factors and are a much more modern phenomenon than our longstanding vaccination programme

I've already explained why so young - because it makes sense to vaccinate (ie protect a baby) from the earliest moment possible (ie as soon as their immune system is mature enough to produce effective antibodies).

Again I disagree, I do not believe a 8 week old child's immune system is anywhere near mature enough to deal with this amount and intensity of vaccine. Let's not forget that no allowance is given to babies who are born late or early, it is just a blanket 8 weeks. One would think that all babies are different... And such a blanket rule for all would be (at least some of the time) not appropriate.

Most vaccinations can technically be given at birth (as with the TB jab here) but in the case of the Dpt it was found that, while giving the vaccine that early does not have any detrimental effects, this does not result in an efficient production of antibodies. This is less to do with the development of the immune system in terms of age/adjusted age and more to do with the time post birth needed for maternal antibodies to stop inhibiting/interfering with the infant's ability to produce it's own antibodies.

The answer as to 'why so quickly' is simply that the time scales used ensure that the maximum number of antibodies possible are produced - in other words extensive studies and testing have shown that this schedule provides the highest level of immunity that lasts for the longest time .... it really has nothing to do with maternity leave at all

I would love to see a study suggesting this, I have to say I have never come across one, it is recommended that a child be vaccinated against these diseases at least 5 times before the age of six, but I would love to see an accurate study showing that giving them so young and in quick succession was more effective than spreading them out.

LOL - well I found several scientific studies/articles from 3 different countries that tracked antibody levels over several different groups on different immunisation timetables .... very interesting reading

 

[feeble]

I would love to see these studies, please provide a link x

I have been respectful of your choices and glad we could discuss things reasonably despite being in opposing corners, I am not sure why there is sarcasm and disregard in your last post TM... It's a shame x