Perils to Baby in a Household With an Unvaccinated Older Child
February 5, 2013 7:44 AM Subscribe
Confirm my understanding of the perils to a baby in a house with an unvaccinated child, and recommend an article explaining those perils that I can forward to my niece who's about to have another kid.
My niece is an anti-vaccination crazy, though a mild, quiet one...even though she was a biology major at a good college (hard to believe, I know).
She's about to have a second baby. And my understanding is that's where the peril is. The first kid's carrying contagions she wouldn't be carrying had she been vaccinated, and the newborn, with its delicate immune system, will be endangered from being around her.
Do I have that correct? If so, can anyone suggest one single wham-o great article on the specific dangers of introducing a newborn into this scenario?
Please note that I'm not asking for an over-all debunking of anti-vaccination hysteria. I know how crazy it is, and she's heard those arguments and been unaffected. I'm looking for specific clear/hard evidence that introducing a newborn into a household with an unvaccinated child puts the newborn in peril.
I ask that the thread not be hijacked by general debate on vaccines, or strong admonishment that I need to educate my niece, generally, on the topic. I understand and agree that her stance is bad for society, and for both kids, generally. But I'm not going to change her overall perspective. It might, though, be possible to convince her there's a specific and immediate peril to the newborn if I can present such evidence. I've heard anecdotally about people in Australia...?
My niece is an anti-vaccination crazy, though a mild, quiet one...even though she was a biology major at a good college (hard to believe, I know).
She's about to have a second baby. And my understanding is that's where the peril is. The first kid's carrying contagions she wouldn't be carrying had she been vaccinated, and the newborn, with its delicate immune system, will be endangered from being around her.
Do I have that correct? If so, can anyone suggest one single wham-o great article on the specific dangers of introducing a newborn into this scenario?
Please note that I'm not asking for an over-all debunking of anti-vaccination hysteria. I know how crazy it is, and she's heard those arguments and been unaffected. I'm looking for specific clear/hard evidence that introducing a newborn into a household with an unvaccinated child puts the newborn in peril.
I ask that the thread not be hijacked by general debate on vaccines, or strong admonishment that I need to educate my niece, generally, on the topic. I understand and agree that her stance is bad for society, and for both kids, generally. But I'm not going to change her overall perspective. It might, though, be possible to convince her there's a specific and immediate peril to the newborn if I can present such evidence. I've heard anecdotally about people in Australia...?
The first kid's carrying contagions she wouldn't be carrying had she been vaccinated, and the newborn, with its delicate immune system, will be endangered from being around her. Do I have that correct?
No you do not. Most of us carry a shedload of diseases with us; I routinely test positive for TB but have never had the disease.
It is completely standard in non-vax families for the neither the first child nor any subsequent children to be vaccinated and thus your niece seems unlikely to be swayed by a "but think of the baby!" argument.
posted by DarlingBri at 7:55 AM on February 5, 2013 [3 favorites]
No you do not. Most of us carry a shedload of diseases with us; I routinely test positive for TB but have never had the disease.
It is completely standard in non-vax families for the neither the first child nor any subsequent children to be vaccinated and thus your niece seems unlikely to be swayed by a "but think of the baby!" argument.
posted by DarlingBri at 7:55 AM on February 5, 2013 [3 favorites]
. And my understanding is that's where the peril is. The first kid's carrying contagions she wouldn't be carrying had she been vaccinated, and the newborn, with its delicate immune system, will be endangered from being around her.
Well, for this to happen, the first kid would have to come down with one of the specific sicknesses that he hadn't been vaccinated against at the same time that the second child vulnerable, though the newborn will have some additional protection from the antibodies in the mother's breast milk.
It's a risk, but it's a risk that your niece is already willing to assume. Would she be ready to quarantine the older sibling and/or possibly live with her parents or inlaws until the older sibling is no longer contagious if he comes down with a sickness that could otherwise be vaccinated against? One would hope so, because that is her only recourse.
posted by deanc at 7:57 AM on February 5, 2013
Well, for this to happen, the first kid would have to come down with one of the specific sicknesses that he hadn't been vaccinated against at the same time that the second child vulnerable, though the newborn will have some additional protection from the antibodies in the mother's breast milk.
It's a risk, but it's a risk that your niece is already willing to assume. Would she be ready to quarantine the older sibling and/or possibly live with her parents or inlaws until the older sibling is no longer contagious if he comes down with a sickness that could otherwise be vaccinated against? One would hope so, because that is her only recourse.
posted by deanc at 7:57 AM on February 5, 2013
Not really sure what you are looking for because if she doesn't get the importance of immunizing her first child, what's going to make her get the importance of immunizing her second child? Sure there's probably some increased risk to the second child that the first child didn't have, but that increased risk is not the main issue by any means. The main issue is that your niece doesn't understand the risk-benefit equation for vaccines.
posted by Dansaman at 7:58 AM on February 5, 2013 [10 favorites]
posted by Dansaman at 7:58 AM on February 5, 2013 [10 favorites]
Just one anecdote, but a very large number of people in our extended family came down with whooping cough after a family reunion, because a large percentage of the family members (and perhaps not coincidentally, several with very large families) are anti-vaccine and so none of their children were vaccinated.
Some of the afflicted included older adults who had the vaccine when they were young (apparently the effectiveness wears off with time). It was not a pleasant experience for them and my sister-in-law, for example, carries the health effects to this day.
That was one family reunion I was happy to miss. And honestly the experience made me far less patient with anti-vaccine nonsense. (I don't know if this will help your niece, though!)
posted by flug at 8:02 AM on February 5, 2013 [7 favorites]
Some of the afflicted included older adults who had the vaccine when they were young (apparently the effectiveness wears off with time). It was not a pleasant experience for them and my sister-in-law, for example, carries the health effects to this day.
That was one family reunion I was happy to miss. And honestly the experience made me far less patient with anti-vaccine nonsense. (I don't know if this will help your niece, though!)
posted by flug at 8:02 AM on February 5, 2013 [7 favorites]
Pull up the website danamccaffery.com. There are lots of links to other articles on the home page.
Australian baby Dana McCaffery died of pertussis when she was 4 weeks old. Her parents were living in a region with one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country.
I think Dansaman's logic is correct re: the increased risk to a second child, by the way. But the articles linked in the McCaffery website might be enough to scare the pants off your niece and make her reconsider, which is your ultimate goal, right?
posted by Salamander at 8:07 AM on February 5, 2013 [5 favorites]
Australian baby Dana McCaffery died of pertussis when she was 4 weeks old. Her parents were living in a region with one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country.
I think Dansaman's logic is correct re: the increased risk to a second child, by the way. But the articles linked in the McCaffery website might be enough to scare the pants off your niece and make her reconsider, which is your ultimate goal, right?
posted by Salamander at 8:07 AM on February 5, 2013 [5 favorites]
I think the whooping cough example is your single greatest potential for convincing her, but you'll need to accept that it may not have any effect at all.
A friend of mine's infant twins were nearly lost when their dad brought pertussis home from a distant conference. Her pain over their suffering and nearly losing them changed a lot of minds in our bohemian community. But not all.
Just love that baby all you can when you get the chance and hope she stays healthy.
posted by batmonkey at 8:16 AM on February 5, 2013 [4 favorites]
A friend of mine's infant twins were nearly lost when their dad brought pertussis home from a distant conference. Her pain over their suffering and nearly losing them changed a lot of minds in our bohemian community. But not all.
Just love that baby all you can when you get the chance and hope she stays healthy.
posted by batmonkey at 8:16 AM on February 5, 2013 [4 favorites]
If my info/memory is correct, this is probably not the best tack for you to take with your niece.
Almost 21 years ago, my toddler contracted chicken pox* about the time I was due to deliver my second child. My doctor assured me that the baby was not in danger as he would acquire my immunities (I had had chicken pox as a child) in utero. IIRC, this protection lasted for several months.
*This must have been prior to the chicken pox vaccine as I would not have knowingly left my children vulnerable to a preventable disease. Good luck trying to talk some sense into your niece.
On preview—I have no idea if this applies to whopping cough.
posted by she's not there at 8:19 AM on February 5, 2013
Almost 21 years ago, my toddler contracted chicken pox* about the time I was due to deliver my second child. My doctor assured me that the baby was not in danger as he would acquire my immunities (I had had chicken pox as a child) in utero. IIRC, this protection lasted for several months.
*This must have been prior to the chicken pox vaccine as I would not have knowingly left my children vulnerable to a preventable disease. Good luck trying to talk some sense into your niece.
On preview—I have no idea if this applies to whopping cough.
posted by she's not there at 8:19 AM on February 5, 2013
My heart goes out to you - I can't imagine the frustration trying to get her to come around.
Definitely the pertussis is a HUGE concern. California saw a nasty outbreak in 2010 that killed 10 infants. TEN babies.
Also, rotavirus is an issue. There is a nasty new one this year and those little bodies just don't handle dehydration well.
I've found the website Voices for Vaccination to have some great stories from all around the world of people who were anti-vax and are now changing their minds, usually because their child got some entirely preventable disease like tetanus.
posted by Leezie at 8:31 AM on February 5, 2013 [4 favorites]
Definitely the pertussis is a HUGE concern. California saw a nasty outbreak in 2010 that killed 10 infants. TEN babies.
Also, rotavirus is an issue. There is a nasty new one this year and those little bodies just don't handle dehydration well.
I've found the website Voices for Vaccination to have some great stories from all around the world of people who were anti-vax and are now changing their minds, usually because their child got some entirely preventable disease like tetanus.
posted by Leezie at 8:31 AM on February 5, 2013 [4 favorites]
In response to the comment by she's not there, yes, it does apply to whooping cough, but the problem is that most adults haven't had a pertussis vaccine in a long time and immunity has waned, and so actually the most updated recommendation is that pregnant women should have a booster TdaP shot in late pregnancy, to ensure that the baby is covered by the mom's immunity when it is born. Because no matter how pro-vaccine you are, newborns can't be vaccinated against pertussis immediately, and sadly, the deaths from pertussis have been disproportionately in the infants prior to immunization age (i.e. less than 6 weeks).
I'm doubting that your niece is going to be willing to get a TdaP booster for herself, as from what I know most anti-vaccine folks think vaccines are "toxic" and would be afraid to get them during pregnancy particularly.
Also, to reiterate the above comments that are correct:
- The first child is not carrying the bugs that he or she would be vaccinated against at all times, he or she would have to become ill and pass it to the baby. Of course, with the recent outbreaks of things like pertussis and measles, there is certainly a significant risk of the other child getting infected, especially if he/she is school age or in daycare (exposed to a lot of other kids). If I were you I'd keep an eye on the relevant outbreak news sites (like this one from the CDC on pertussis outbreaks) and pass along the news if there is an outbreak. That is the easiest way I can think of to point out that there is a specific and immediate peril for the baby. Heck, if she's not willing to vaccinate them against something that might kill them, at least she could keep them away from other kids as much as possible until the outbreak passes?
Just don't expect her to change her mind. The anti-vaccine thing is like a religion for people. It makes it very difficult for them to admit they might have been incorrect, and they don't tend to see things in shades of gray (i.e. some vaccines might be safe in some situations). Anyway here's a Dr. Sears article with more on the subject, but I wouldn't call it a wham-o article, because he does let the cat out of the bag that the danger is only if the older children are sick. You could encourage her to very strictly quarantine anyone who is sick around the newborn, but honestly she should be doing that whether the baby is going to be immunized or not.
posted by treehorn+bunny at 9:00 AM on February 5, 2013 [3 favorites]
I'm doubting that your niece is going to be willing to get a TdaP booster for herself, as from what I know most anti-vaccine folks think vaccines are "toxic" and would be afraid to get them during pregnancy particularly.
Also, to reiterate the above comments that are correct:
- The first child is not carrying the bugs that he or she would be vaccinated against at all times, he or she would have to become ill and pass it to the baby. Of course, with the recent outbreaks of things like pertussis and measles, there is certainly a significant risk of the other child getting infected, especially if he/she is school age or in daycare (exposed to a lot of other kids). If I were you I'd keep an eye on the relevant outbreak news sites (like this one from the CDC on pertussis outbreaks) and pass along the news if there is an outbreak. That is the easiest way I can think of to point out that there is a specific and immediate peril for the baby. Heck, if she's not willing to vaccinate them against something that might kill them, at least she could keep them away from other kids as much as possible until the outbreak passes?
Just don't expect her to change her mind. The anti-vaccine thing is like a religion for people. It makes it very difficult for them to admit they might have been incorrect, and they don't tend to see things in shades of gray (i.e. some vaccines might be safe in some situations). Anyway here's a Dr. Sears article with more on the subject, but I wouldn't call it a wham-o article, because he does let the cat out of the bag that the danger is only if the older children are sick. You could encourage her to very strictly quarantine anyone who is sick around the newborn, but honestly she should be doing that whether the baby is going to be immunized or not.
posted by treehorn+bunny at 9:00 AM on February 5, 2013 [3 favorites]
I would think about what diseases the child is actually likely to contract in real life, and use that as leverage. Only you know how your sister actually thinks, but not all anti-vax-ers are completely immune to risk-benefit thinking. Particularly if your sister was a biology major, I highly doubt that she is irrationally opposed to modern medicine in general, or completely unable to understand the various arguments.
For example, in my family, my mom quit vaccinating her kids in 1994 after my little brother had a (very rare) neurological side effect from the DTaP shot. Her experience with doctors at the time who fudged and dismissed her concerns for as long as possible made her very wary of trusting the medical industry in general. When I tell her that the DTaP was reformulated since then and that the side effects are even MORE rare now than at the time, she rolls her eyes and sighs. Since she had a kid having seizures due to the shot, and she never had a kid with Pertussis, her perspective on the risk-benefit of that vaccine is (understandably) emotionally biased.
However, she reluctantly still gets my youngest brother still at home the Tetanus and Rotavirus vaccines, because we live in a rural area where, say, tripping on a rusty pipe is something she can actually imagine likely happening; and another one of my brothers nearly died from Rotavirus as a baby (before the vaccine). So her issue is not "vaccines are all Toxic/The Devil" but more "vaccines have risks that the doctors probably aren't telling me and if I don't actually think my kid is likely to get that illness I'm not giving them the shot."
So, pointing out which things a child might actually get in her particular area/society, and providing more current and unbiased research on accurate risk levels and side effect frequency, would be the way to go. In my experience it is difficult to find via normal means (i.e. Dr Google) accessible research on vaccines that is not either (A) crazypants conspiracy theorist or (B) patronizing fear-mongering crap straight from the AAP (which, I can basically guarantee you, she won't trust). Even I, who do vaccinate my kids, get pretty irritated with the unwillingness of some of those folks to address the real concerns and provide actual statistics on side effects and such instead of blowing them off. As an educated parent, I want to know what I'm looking for, at the very least. If you can find TRULY objective studies on the risks of vaccines for diseases that are still going around in some areas, I think that would be the most convincing.
posted by celtalitha at 9:25 AM on February 5, 2013 [4 favorites]
For example, in my family, my mom quit vaccinating her kids in 1994 after my little brother had a (very rare) neurological side effect from the DTaP shot. Her experience with doctors at the time who fudged and dismissed her concerns for as long as possible made her very wary of trusting the medical industry in general. When I tell her that the DTaP was reformulated since then and that the side effects are even MORE rare now than at the time, she rolls her eyes and sighs. Since she had a kid having seizures due to the shot, and she never had a kid with Pertussis, her perspective on the risk-benefit of that vaccine is (understandably) emotionally biased.
However, she reluctantly still gets my youngest brother still at home the Tetanus and Rotavirus vaccines, because we live in a rural area where, say, tripping on a rusty pipe is something she can actually imagine likely happening; and another one of my brothers nearly died from Rotavirus as a baby (before the vaccine). So her issue is not "vaccines are all Toxic/The Devil" but more "vaccines have risks that the doctors probably aren't telling me and if I don't actually think my kid is likely to get that illness I'm not giving them the shot."
So, pointing out which things a child might actually get in her particular area/society, and providing more current and unbiased research on accurate risk levels and side effect frequency, would be the way to go. In my experience it is difficult to find via normal means (i.e. Dr Google) accessible research on vaccines that is not either (A) crazypants conspiracy theorist or (B) patronizing fear-mongering crap straight from the AAP (which, I can basically guarantee you, she won't trust). Even I, who do vaccinate my kids, get pretty irritated with the unwillingness of some of those folks to address the real concerns and provide actual statistics on side effects and such instead of blowing them off. As an educated parent, I want to know what I'm looking for, at the very least. If you can find TRULY objective studies on the risks of vaccines for diseases that are still going around in some areas, I think that would be the most convincing.
posted by celtalitha at 9:25 AM on February 5, 2013 [4 favorites]
Maternal antibodies are pretty strong things and protect most kids until they are about 3 years old. I encountered this while reading the history of Polio in the United States. Most kids would get out and about and play in the dirt and contract Polio under the age of 3. They would have a mild case or no symptoms at all because their maternal anitbodies protected them. In the 1950's when major cleanliness became the norm, kids weren't getting Polio until the were in their early teen's and then becoming deathly ill.
These days there are lots of people traveling and immigrating that have not been immunized. In my area Whooping Cough and Measles are coming back and it can be mapped at the beginning of every new school year.
Also for what its worth, I had the Mumps as a child at the age of 4 and suffered nerve deafness in one ear because of it.
posted by PJMoore at 11:39 AM on February 5, 2013
These days there are lots of people traveling and immigrating that have not been immunized. In my area Whooping Cough and Measles are coming back and it can be mapped at the beginning of every new school year.
Also for what its worth, I had the Mumps as a child at the age of 4 and suffered nerve deafness in one ear because of it.
posted by PJMoore at 11:39 AM on February 5, 2013
"Maternal antibodies are pretty strong things and protect most kids until they are about 3 years old."
This is not how passive immunity works. Kids only have access to maternal antibodies if they're really young (like newborn young) or breastfeeding. More here.
posted by topoisomerase at 1:24 PM on February 5, 2013 [5 favorites]
This is not how passive immunity works. Kids only have access to maternal antibodies if they're really young (like newborn young) or breastfeeding. More here.
posted by topoisomerase at 1:24 PM on February 5, 2013 [5 favorites]
Oh, I should mention my mom was also a biology major (in the 70s but still).
posted by celtalitha at 3:51 PM on February 5, 2013
posted by celtalitha at 3:51 PM on February 5, 2013
This thread is closed to new comments.
Report on a recent epidemic. The Centers for Disease Control on nationwide issues, including deaths.
posted by Tanizaki at 7:52 AM on February 5, 2013 [3 favorites]