Out of curiousity, my memory of childhood illnesses was that chickenpox and measles were prety much innevitable: it was a question of when I got them, not if.
Is that still the case? I've been watching the MMR arguments with a vague bemusement: everybody I knew got measles, was out of action for a bit, and then got up again.
I've had MMR but not chicken pox vaccine (it was available when I was small, but there were concerns at the time about those with allergies in the family). I've never had measles or chicken pox.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles):
The fatality rate from measles for otherwise healthy people in developed countries is low: approximately 1 death per thousand cases. In underdeveloped nations with high rates of malnutrition and poor healthcare, fatality rates of 10 percent are common. In immunocompromised patients, the fatality rate is approximately 30 percent.
So there you go - you and your friends were in the lucky 99.9%, and the issue over MMR was basically because the government are very keen to keep the remaining 0.1 of a percentage point out of their infant/child mortality statistics, and therefore don't want to let parents refuse the vaccine.
the issue over MMR was basically because the government are very keen to keep the remaining 0.1 of a percentage point out of their infant/child mortality statistics
And disability stats. Georgia knows the percentages (I don't) but deafness, blindness and other icky things were also caused by M, M and R.
I've never had measles or chicken pox.
Oh. In that case I may get a second opinion on Ryan's infectious status. Y'see I think he'll be uninfectious by Monde (his spots started to appear Wednesday evening), but if you can catch it, I'd rather be sure. Adult chicken pox is a nasty, nasty thing.
1 death in 1000 cases is actually a very high rate of mortality for a preventable childhood disease. This also doesn't take account of the long term morbidity that can be associated with measles - pneumonia, brain damage etc.
The HPA website (http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/measles/menu.htm) seems to suggest the death rate (as a result of SSPE) is more like 1/100,000 and the 1/1000 statistic is to do with acute encephalitis (leading to brain damage in 1/4 of such cases).
The issue over MMR is that, even if the injection is associated with autism (very unlikely...), it would be in such small numbers that, from a societal point of view, vaccination of the population would still be infinately preferable to having an unvaccinated population and measles epidemics.
The issue with the single vaccine is that it's supposedly less effective than the MMR jab, and having parents take their kids to the doctors 3 separate times for jabs results in a much reduced coverage rate when compared to taking them just once.
I wouldn't criticise the government for wanting every child to have the MMR vaccine. As you say, even if it does cause autism it's probably still net beneficial.
I do criticise the government for the terrible way in which they "handled" (i.e. tried to ignore) the debate over the suggested autism connection, and for attempting to short-circuit the whole process by threatening mass forced medication.
Yep, but personally I think the problem is largely a media issue.
Even if there isn't an actual link, the media gets hold of the possibility of a problem and blows it out of proportion. There was the same worry over the whooping cough vaccination in the 70s. There's a lovely graph (http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/whoopingcough/gen_info.htm) that shows the vaccination coverage decreasing and the numbers of cases increasing over the period of concern. Also, more worryingly, the decrease in vaccination coverage led to approx. 100 extra deaths from the disease during that period.
The media grabs hold of these stories and uses scare tactics to convince worried parents that they're doing something horrendous by giving their kids these vaccinations... despite the lack of evidence whatever the horrendous thing is supposed to be (brain damage in the case of whooping cough, autism for MMR).
But having said that, I do also agree that the government could have handled the MMR controversy better.
Yep, but personally I think the problem is largely a media issue.
That's true - coverage of medical issues is woeful in the popular press, partly because the journalists have no better grasp of the issues than the readers and partly because hysterical stories shift units.
It doesn't help that there are very few remaining tabloid tactics that the government is not also willing to use, because it results in situations where no popular source of information can be trusted. The public end up making essentially arbitrary decisions, because even if they want good evidence they can't get it without interpreting the raw research for themselves.
Yep. Also, it's good to get it out of the way as early as possible. Kids tend to get over it very quickly (neither Bea or Ryan have shown any signs of being ill apart from loads of spots) whilst adults have a really rough time of it.
everybody I knew got measles, was out of action for a bit, and then got up again.
Not sure if I had measles or not. The current theory is that I got at least one of mumps and measles and it took out my left ear.
Probably good that he's getting it out of the way early.
But then, from another point of view he's missing out. It's good to have chickenpox when you can read. I had it when I was eight and spent the mandatory two weeks off school blissfully reading in bed. My dad was making two trips a day to the local library and still couldn't keep up with demand :)
But enough flippancy, I hope he gets better soon, poor little mite.
I have a theory that the older you are when you get it the more ill you are with it - this is not based on scientific theory though only anecdotal so I would love to hear biologist's views on the subject.
Also I was about 6/7 when I got it and I had a miserable time, I got the spots in my ears and on the sole of my feet and other places. I could barely walk to my bath of bicarbonate of soda which mum's friend insisted took the itch away - she lied.
I have a theory that the older you are when you get it the more ill you are with it - this is not based on scientific theory
Er... isn't it ? I had thought this was at least a well accepted theory, and thought it was agreed on by doctors (from anecdotal evidence), even if not scientifically proven.
Having said that, though, I'd have expected 6-7 to be on the young side to have it, so would have expected you to have a relatively easy time with it. I think I was 8 or 9, and had a reasonably mild case, beyond the annoying itchiness, and managing some spots which were a couple of inches across.
When you get chickenpox you're infective from 2 days BEFORE the rash (don't ask me how) until the last of your spotty blisters have burst and crusted over. It's usually about 7 days worth of infectedness but varies from beeby to beeby. Once you've had it 98% of people are immune (though a bit of virus may creep up a random peripheral nerve and lie dormant in a ganglion, only to re-awake and give you a bout of shingle several years late) 2% of people don't mount a permanent enough immune response to retain immunity, so they *can* get chickenpox again. Not that much of a problem unless person is a girly and gets it the second time while they're pregnant (can be treated but really best avoided). This is why it's best for pregnant people to keep away from spotty beebies. OK, TMI :o)
oh, dear. poor Ryan! well, perhaps he's still small enough that you can dip him bodily in calamine lotion, rather like Achilles.
i think i was 8 or 9 when i got it, and i missed a school field trip and was so furious that i went downstairs and made a big black X on our class picture over the face of the boy i got it from.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 08:33 am (UTC)Out of curiousity, my memory of childhood illnesses was that chickenpox and measles were prety much innevitable: it was a question of when I got them, not if.
Is that still the case? I've been watching the MMR arguments with a vague bemusement: everybody I knew got measles, was out of action for a bit, and then got up again.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 09:21 am (UTC)From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles):
So there you go - you and your friends were in the lucky 99.9%, and the issue over MMR was basically because the government are very keen to keep the remaining 0.1 of a percentage point out of their infant/child mortality statistics, and therefore don't want to let parents refuse the vaccine.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 10:16 am (UTC)And disability stats. Georgia knows the percentages (I don't) but deafness, blindness and other icky things were also caused by M, M and R.
I've never had measles or chicken pox.
Oh. In that case I may get a second opinion on Ryan's infectious status. Y'see I think he'll be uninfectious by Monde (his spots started to appear Wednesday evening), but if you can catch it, I'd rather be sure. Adult chicken pox is a nasty, nasty thing.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 10:17 am (UTC)The HPA website (http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/measles/menu.htm) seems to suggest the death rate (as a result of SSPE) is more like 1/100,000 and the 1/1000 statistic is to do with acute encephalitis (leading to brain damage in 1/4 of such cases).
The issue over MMR is that, even if the injection is associated with autism (very unlikely...), it would be in such small numbers that, from a societal point of view, vaccination of the population would still be infinately preferable to having an unvaccinated population and measles epidemics.
The issue with the single vaccine is that it's supposedly less effective than the MMR jab, and having parents take their kids to the doctors 3 separate times for jabs results in a much reduced coverage rate when compared to taking them just once.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 10:23 am (UTC)I do criticise the government for the terrible way in which they "handled" (i.e. tried to ignore) the debate over the suggested autism connection, and for attempting to short-circuit the whole process by threatening mass forced medication.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 10:35 am (UTC)Even if there isn't an actual link, the media gets hold of the possibility of a problem and blows it out of proportion. There was the same worry over the whooping cough vaccination in the 70s. There's a lovely graph (http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/whoopingcough/gen_info.htm) that shows the vaccination coverage decreasing and the numbers of cases increasing over the period of concern. Also, more worryingly, the decrease in vaccination coverage led to approx. 100 extra deaths from the disease during that period.
The media grabs hold of these stories and uses scare tactics to convince worried parents that they're doing something horrendous by giving their kids these vaccinations... despite the lack of evidence whatever the horrendous thing is supposed to be (brain damage in the case of whooping cough, autism for MMR).
But having said that, I do also agree that the government could have handled the MMR controversy better.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 10:45 am (UTC)That's true - coverage of medical issues is woeful in the popular press, partly because the journalists have no better grasp of the issues than the readers and partly because hysterical stories shift units.
It doesn't help that there are very few remaining tabloid tactics that the government is not also willing to use, because it results in situations where no popular source of information can be trusted. The public end up making essentially arbitrary decisions, because even if they want good evidence they can't get it without interpreting the raw research for themselves.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 10:13 am (UTC)Yep. Also, it's good to get it out of the way as early as possible. Kids tend to get over it very quickly (neither Bea or Ryan have shown any signs of being ill apart from loads of spots) whilst adults have a really rough time of it.
everybody I knew got measles, was out of action for a bit, and then got up again.
Not sure if I had measles or not. The current theory is that I got at least one of mumps and measles and it took out my left ear.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 08:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 08:48 am (UTC)Still, I suppose having it now gets it over with :)
You could go for a 1930s style chicken pox party ?
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 10:17 am (UTC)If anyone wants chicken pox, they're welcome to visit...
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 09:55 am (UTC)But then, from another point of view he's missing out. It's good to have chickenpox when you can read. I had it when I was eight and spent the mandatory two weeks off school blissfully reading in bed. My dad was making two trips a day to the local library and still couldn't keep up with demand :)
But enough flippancy, I hope he gets better soon, poor little mite.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 09:58 am (UTC)I have a theory that the older you are when you get it the more ill you are with it - this is not based on scientific theory though only anecdotal so I would love to hear biologist's views on the subject.
Also I was about 6/7 when I got it and I had a miserable time, I got the spots in my ears and on the sole of my feet and other places. I could barely walk to my bath of bicarbonate of soda which mum's friend insisted took the itch away - she lied.
no subject
I have lots. Doesn't matter much to me, but for a beautiful poseur like Ryan it would be tragic !
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 11:31 am (UTC)Er... isn't it ? I had thought this was at least a well accepted theory, and thought it was agreed on by doctors (from anecdotal evidence), even if not scientifically proven.
Having said that, though, I'd have expected 6-7 to be on the young side to have it, so would have expected you to have a relatively easy time with it. I think I was 8 or 9, and had a reasonably mild case, beyond the annoying itchiness, and managing some spots which were a couple of inches across.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 12:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 10:18 am (UTC)He's actually fine. Just spotty. He always appreciates sympathy though!
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 10:25 am (UTC)no subject
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 03:14 pm (UTC)2% of people don't mount a permanent enough immune response to retain immunity, so they *can* get chickenpox again. Not that much of a problem unless person is a girly and gets it the second time while they're pregnant (can be treated but really best avoided). This is why it's best for pregnant people to keep away from spotty beebies.
OK, TMI :o)
no subject
Date: 2004-05-21 10:34 pm (UTC)i think i was 8 or 9 when i got it, and i missed a school field trip and was so furious that i went downstairs and made a big black X on our class picture over the face of the boy i got it from.