DD had the Hep vaccination at birth, not because she is in any at-risk group for it, but because DH and I believe strongly in the public health effort to eradicate the disease from our population. Imagine if our children and ourselves were at risk from smallpox because some people didn't want to vaccinate against that 30 years ago (or whenever it was eliminated from Australia!). I think it's best for everyone, including ourselves, to support such initiatives.
DD will be having all of her 2 month vaccinations as soon as she is old enough - on the dot of 2 months. I know that we can't protect her from these things that are in the community because in the end, she has to go out.
DH and myself, and DD's grandparents, have just had the whooping cough vaccination too. It scares me that an adult who doesn't even feel sick could give that to her before she has any protection from it at all! At least she won't get it from those adults that she sees most often, but there is no way to make sure that none of the people who visit us in the next couple of months have it, or none of the people we pass in the park, and so on.
To change direction slightly, there's a point here that people are making that is just plain wrong, sorry to say, and it's a confusing thing so I'm going to have a go at explaining it again.
The problem is confusion about the meaning of the fact (let's assume it's a fact - I don't know that it is, but I'm happy to believe it because it makes total sense) that most of the kids who catch a given disease are vaccinated against it. Let's assume that thing is true, no arguments.
However this does not even slightly mean that it is therefore safer to not be vaccinated against that disease. It worries me a lot that so many parents seem to misunderstand this thing, and that it is mis-used as propaganda by anti-vaccination lobbyists. (some of the other things anti-vaccination people say I have no problem with - the issue is sifting out the real stuff from the fake stuff, and this one is a fake).
The point is that if 99% of kids are vaccinated against a disease, and the vaccination is not 100% effective (I don't think any of them are), then simply because there are so many more vaccinated kids than unvaccinated kids, you will get more vaccinated kids who catch the disease.
But, and this is the big big but: the individual risk to a particular child (my child, for example, or your child) of catching the disease is much much higher if they are not vaccinated than if they are vaccinated.
So if you want to choose to not vaccinate your child, that's your choice as a parent. But please don't choose it because you think that they are less likely to get the disease that way. The fact is that they are much more likely to get the disease if they are not vaccinated, and this is the risk that you are choosing to take - much better to take it open-eyed than to be blinkered about it.
I'm happy to answer any questions about it if you have them. It is a confusing point and I can understand why so many people misunderstand it. If I don't see your replies please PM me for a response (I am very busy with a newborn and a sick husband at the moment, not checking the forum that often).
My brother was not vaccinated against measles when we were kids. I still remember how sick he was when he caught it, years later, when we were on holiday, and how my mum felt about him missing his measles vac when she had gotten myself and my sister vaccinated against that (we didn't catch it). Seeing a child dangerously sick from an illness that is largely preventable does bring home the point about vaccinations, in my experience.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks