Easy to miss in all the Cabinet furore, but there have been increasing calls recently to make MMR jabs mandatory for children before they're allowed to attend school. Raises a number of interesting questions: does the State have the right to effectively make decisions about immunisation on behalf of parents? Should there be exemptions on religious grounds from programmes which affect the rest of the population?


Full article here.

This was asked on Question Time last night. Personally I believe that they should be mandatory. Why the f*ck should people be allowed to risk the health of other people's kids?

Another giant step forward in the march of the nanny state.
Why stop there, why not ban over weight kids and kids of parents that smoke?

All for it. Nothing worse than trying to get round Tesco's when you're stuck behind some fat wheezy c*nt and her equally fat wheezy offspring filling their fat wheezy faces with bags of Cheesy Quavers (which they haven't even paid for) in between drooling over the pies. The only time the c*nts put some step into it is when they get close to the cake section. Being stuck behind them at the checkout is a f*cking nightmare. There's alwasy a fight between them and the check out lass, as the fat wheezy c*nts who couldn't wait until they got out of the shop, have by this time, usually eaten half the contents of the trolly. Stood there in their ill fitting joggers, cream cakes and crumbs slapped over their fizzers trying to deny everything.

C*nts are costing the taxpayer a f*cking fortune.

Last edited by Biscuits_AB on Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

How do they risk other people's kids?

A child who has a MMR jab is not going to catch measles, mumps or rubella.

A child who hasn't had the jab IS at risk... but the parents chose to take that risk inthe first place.

The only way for there to be NO risk would be to only have ONE child who wasn't immunised in each school.

Re fat kids and other dramas.

The schools should start education on such matters, and get some descent school sports clubs going again.

Sunday matches between the schools?

Last edited by chocolate_frog on Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:24 pm; edited 1 time in total

Exactly.

No! MMR should NOT be compulsory. (But my daughter chose for my granddaughter to have MMR.)

I believe there should be the option of single jabs. The argument against this is always that there are 6 seperate jabs and compliance is a problem. Why can babies not just be given measles jab?

My daughter (now aged 26) was given measles jab at 13 months? or 18 months? She then had rubella jab around the age of 11. (She might have been given MMR around the age of 14/15 at school?)

I guess that ALL parents would wish their children to be vaccinated against measles. It is very dangerous. I see no reason why BABIES need to be vaccinated against mumps or rubella.

Is not the risk of rubella to pregnant mums? And the jab can be given to girls at puberty? Is german measles not pretty harmless in children?

Is not the risk of mumps to males after puberty? And that jab can be given to boys? Is mumps not pretty harmless in children?

First MMR injection is given at 13 months, so babies younger than that are protected if the majority of older children are immunised. See www.immunisation.nhs.u...n_Schedule

You don't get this at our Waitrose.

You have to go to the supermarkets catering for the less discerning clientel....

Vaccination doesn't work like that. You rely on a "herd" vaccination, which means you need the majority to be vaccinated to fight off the disease. If only a few are vaccinated, it becomes almost worthless

Sorry, but thats not true.

If the level of immunity in the population is high enough (only about 100,000 non-immunised individuals) then something called herd immunity results, which means that the virus cannot survive as there is nowhere for it to hide.

However, if enough people are not vaccinated the the virus can mutate and will therefore render all previous vaccinations irrelevant. 10% of people can avoid vaccination without disadvantaging themselves or anyone else, but if 20% dont get vaccinated then everyone is at risk. This is the current situation and we are due for a measles epidemic in the very neaf future with a lot of dead kids as a result.

Surely the only way this works is by the mutation of the diesease in the unprotected.... whilst if only a few are vaccinated, then yes, it is useless.

But if it is only a few who don't take the vaccine then the problem is lowered.

So, in the case of those refusing MMR, why not offer JUST the measles vaccine (see my post above)?

* No measles epidemic.
* No compliance problems with 6 jabs to give.

Surely mumps and rubella are pretty harmless to those under puberty?

True, but vaccination uptake is well below the levels required. It is not a case of just a few.

BUT, they are serious (and possible killers) to those over puberty...and so if you get enough kids carrying these diseases there is a chance of those who have had the vaccine getting a strain. There is no work around on this. Either people get vaccinated, or the disease will rise

This is lifted from another web blog. I find it very very persuasive and wonder why 'someone' in officialdom has not used it to further the cause. We had a small blizzard of publicity over the school exclusion unless immunised proposal. That just raised animosity with me and I am sure it hit others in a negative way that Dahl's effort completely avoids.

Here's Roald Dahl's impassioned plea to get your kids immunized. I live in East London, where we have live measles afflicting otherwise healthy kids who could have been vaccinated against them, but whose parents have been duped by a falsified claim that vaccinations are linked to autism (here's a non-falsified claim: measles leads to permanent disability and even death).

I remember when my daughter got sick and broke out with measle-like spots when she was too young to have had her vaccination against the disease. As I contemplated the possibility that my daughter might be permanently disabled or even killed because gullible people were choosing not to vaccinate their kids, I wanted to start wringing necks.

Dahl had a child die from measles, and he was determined that no other child should die needlessly from fear and ignorance.

Here in Britain, because so many parents refuse, either out of obstinacy or ignorance or fear, to allow their children to be immunised, we still have a hundred thousand cases of measles every year. Out of those, more than 10,000 will suffer side effects of one kind or another. At least 10,000 will develop ear or chest infections. About 20 will die. LET THAT SINK IN. Every year around 20 children will die in Britain from measles. So what about the risks that your children will run from being immunised? They are almost non-existent. Listen to this. In a district of around 300,000 people, there will be only one child every 250 years who will develop serious side effects from measles immunisation! That is about a million to one chance. I should think there would be more chance of your child choking to death on a chocolate bar than of becoming seriously ill from a measles immunisation. So what on earth are you worrying about? It really is almost a crime to allow your child to go unimmunised. The ideal time to have it done is at 13 months, but it is never too late. All school-children who have not yet had a measles immunisation should beg their parents to arrange for them to have one as soon as possible. Incidentally, I dedicated two of my books to Olivia, the fi rst was James and the Giant Peach'. That was when she was still alive. The second was 'The BFG', dedicated to her memory after she had died from measles. You will see her name at the beginning of each of these books. And I know how happy she would be if only she could know that her death had helped to save a good deal of illness and death among other children.

The problem isn't the vaccination for Measles, Mumps and Rubella, the problem is that they are given all together to young babies which causes clear health problems for some. It's too much to give a young baby these three vaccines all at once. It's done this way merely to save money and parents should not be forced to take this risk with their baby. Blair didn't inflict the MMR on his children but had them vaccinated seperately.
It's common sense...a bit like the bizarre idea that mercury in fillings doesn't impact on people's health!

Rubella makes children extremely ill. I was off school for two weeks after my mother found me curled up on the floor, sobbing, vomiting and unable to tolerate daylight.

I would not make MMR compulsory but I would make it, or seperate vaccinations, a legal requirement for entry into the state education system.

I do not care whether someone has religious objections, there is only one reason for non vaccination and that is a medical reason. If your twisted version of God bans vaccination then you can also found your own school and keep away from my kids.

Thank you, drain_sniffer.

That is a riddle that has bugged me for years. It has always seemed so straightforward to JUST give measles vaccine to babies and then mumps and rubella vaccines at puberty. I had never considered the "mutation factor" or the question of vaccinated folks not being protected.