St. Judes: No visitors who've recently received live vaccine

mommyla

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 10:12 am

imaima wrote:

Ok, I'll bite
1) Who gets smallpox vaccine nowadays? Haven't heard about nasal flu vaccines and oral polio vaccines either. An average citizen gets shots, or am I wrong?

2) Immunocompromised is not one homogenious group of people. I guess there are levels there. If someone is hospitalized in the first place, it shows that it is dangerous for them to be among general population. Nothing to do with an averagr toddler in a daycare.

My kids got the nasal flu vaccine (AKA FluMist) this year. It's not uncommon at all. And they've gotten oral rotavirus vaccines - whenever they had that my pediatrician said that an immunocompromised person should not change the baby's diapers for six weeks afterwards, but they were allowed to be around them.

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 10:13 am

southernbubby wrote:

The instructions on the shingles vaccine says not to go near newborns after receiving the vaccine but does not specify for how long. I have asked a pediatrician and he stated that an newly vaccinated adult poses no risk to a newborn. I have called the company that makes the vaccine but they have no time frame. To me the answer is to get the shot when none of my children are due to give birth for awhile.

Doesn't that raise a red-flag in your mind? No time frame? I mean, was this studied? Researched? We're relying on them to keep us healthy... Why don't they at least give a minimum? I am extremely concerned about this and makes me trust the company a lot less now.

Barbara

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 10:17 am

amother wrote:

I did wonder, but didn't bring it up in other threads, with this idea of "shedding" after receiving vaccines.... How many Amothers who are boiling over about the selfishness of unvaccinated kids being out and about in the general population, and especially in schools, because of risk to those with compromised immunity, are keeping their children home for some time after receiving vaccines out of respect for those vulnerable individuals??

I wouldn't keep my child home from school. I would schedule the vaccinations for the beginning of a vacation, in order to avoid the issue.

But I'm not boiling over that unvaccinated kids are out in the population. I'm boiling over that in a case when a child was specifically at risk from children whose parents don't vaccinate, the universal consensus of all of the anonymous people here -- because although the rules don't allow you to post anonymously, you don't have the courage of your convictions to use your name(s) -- was tough luck, the sick child should stay home, I'm not vaccinating. And I'm boiling over that when I suggested that the unvaccinated children could be segregated into different classrooms or schools to protect the vulnerable child, the universal consensus was no, we would never agree to any restrictions on our kids in order to protect the life of another; let the compromised child stay home. And I'm boiling over that when I posted an article in which an anti-vaxer proudly stated that even if he knew that his children were putting other vulnerable children at risk, he wouldn't care, because after all, people die, and ergo he would have no reason to feel guilty is his children caused the death of a vulnerable child, not a single anti-vaxer said "that's not what we stand for."

I"m boiling over that a baby, too young to be vaccinated, was diagnosed with measles. And that other infants at the daycare center are at risk. And that the attitude of the anti-vaxers is tough luck, who cares about that baby.

And I hope and I pray that when the anti-vaxers are in the hospital with their babies who contract measles -- and about 15% to 25% of kids with measles wind up hospitalized -- praying that their babies are okay -- they hear someone say "well, there's something less than 1 in a million chance of a serious or permanent side effect
from MMR, so I'm not taking that chance in order to save you from the 25% chance of hospitalization, or 1/1000 chance of death. Because, hey, my kid isn't likely to get measles anyway."

Barbara

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 10:22 am

amother wrote:

There is no time frame because its an extra precaution, as there is no basis to believe that anyone could catch chicken pox from the shingles vaccine.

Quote:

The virus that causes shingles — varicella-zoster virus — is also the virus that causes chickenpox. Your doctor's concern about your daughter and grandchildren may stem from reports of rare cases in which people with no immunity to chickenpox — meaning they've never had chickenpox or the chickenpox vaccine — have caught varicella-zoster virus from children recently vaccinated with the chickenpox vaccine.

However, there are no documented cases of the varicella-zoster virus being transmitted from adults vaccinated with the shingles vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Varicella-zoster vaccines are recommended for children to prevent chickenpox and for adults age 50 and older to prevent shingles, but the formulations are different, and the vaccines are not interchangeable.

According to the CDC, in normal circumstances it's unnecessary to avoid pregnant women and unvaccinated children after you get the shingles vaccine. However, if you develop a rash after you get the shingles vaccine, always take the precaution of keeping the rash covered until all the bumps crust over.

To develop shingles, you have to catch chickenpox first, which typically happens in childhood. When you get over chickenpox, the varicella-zoster virus stays in your body, but remains dormant, often for many years and possibly for life. As you age, though, there's an increasing risk that the virus will reactivate, resulting in shingles.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/dise.....58137

Although I'm sure that doesn't change your opinion.

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 10:46 am

New Amother here.
Wadr, I think the OP brought this up because the past few threads re vaccines on Imamother were specifically about immunocompromised cancer children maybe catching measles from unvaxxed kids who walk around outside. Why can't this side of the issue also be discussed? And for all those saying it's very obvious, I have to disagree. If it's so obvious why is it never mentioned in vax discussions as a precaution for the immunocompromised? My group of doctors/nurses have never told me after vaccinating my many kids k''h to keep them out of public places for 3 weeks post live-vaccines due to the vaccine's possibility to shed. I only learned that after reading up about vaccines myself. So I think it's very logical to bring this up since isn't this also a very real threat?
I'm just wondering, isn't this an even bigger threat than an unvaxxed child? An unvaxxed child just means they are not protected against the disease should they come in contact with it. They may or may not catch it. But a recently vaxxed child, it's not a maybe, it was def injected into them and they can shed it.

I sincerely apologize for being anonymous but I have many family members on here and if I bring up anything questioning vax I will be excommunicated and that's so not fair. Everyone is entitled to have questions Sad

southernbubby

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 10:52 am

amother wrote:

Part of the whole problem is that doctors need to combine education with vaccines. The public is not given enough info about when to call the doctor about a reaction or how to dispose of diapers properly. This, however is no different from any other thread involving health where a doctor simply tells a patient to do or not to do something without any explanation. The part of modern medicine that is sorely lacking is education and that sends people running to alternative practitioners for answers.

water_bear88

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 11:08 am

amother wrote:

I think the call here should be for doctors and nurses to be clear with parents on the issue of shedding. You might be right, that recently vaccinated kids shouldn't be in class with immuno-compromised kids. When we had the oral polio vaccine campaign here in Israel, I think they were telling immuno-compromised kids to stay home from school, since their whole class would likely be shedding. Usually, though, all of the vaccines with shedding potential are done by kindergarten, and preschoolers are so good at spreading any germs that I don't know that an immuno-compromised child should be going to preschool in the first place.

I think there's a big difference between telling immuno-compromised kids to stay out of malls or Disneyland and telling them they can't go to school. School is a basic right, malls and Disneyland are not. I don't believe that should be a pass for unvaccinated children to be let loose in any public place, but kids with medical exemptions should be able to go to school safely. They can do that if the anti-vaxxers are kept apart (as per any of Barbara's suggestions) and kids who are shedding stay home/finish those vaccines before kindergarten/get missing vaccines during the longer school vacations.

Barbara

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 11:17 am

amother wrote:

So back to my question, why are all vax discussions (here and everywhere) always putting Complete blame for disease transmission on healthy unvaxxed families when it is just as likely to be spread from a recently vaccinated child shedding? That sad article written by the father of the cancer child not being able to go to school because of unvaxxers, was there any mention of this aspect?

Do you understand what "vaccine shedding" is?

Do you think that, for example, there can be airborne transmission of chicken pox by "shedding" of the vaccine?

Do you know which vaccines are live, and which are not?

Quick, answer WITHOUT googling.

And, without googling, explain how, for example, measles could be spread to a stranger -- let's say at Disney -- as a result of "shedding."

I'll respond to your question after you respond to mine.

Shouldn't be difficult. You've done your research, haven't you?

Barbara

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 11:21 am

Hidden:

Frenchfry

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 11:45 am

I won't give a child (esp one in diapers) an MMR when I'm pregnant.

When I asked my OB about it, she dimissed it saying that research shows that nothing happens even when the vax is given directly to the mother in the first trimester, on the other hand, I'd like to err on the side of caution.

But should a pregnant day care worker be allowed to ask parents not to send a child to day care in the weeks after getting an MMR?

There, figured I'd stir things up a bit more.

Hashem_Yaazor

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 11:54 am

It is existent when a kid develops measles from it (like just happened in MD), but you're right that MMR hardly sheds.

Varicella is frequently given as a booster to kindergarten aged children, and the nasal mist is also given frequently IN SCHOOLS. I was told by a school that my daughter had to have the varicella vaccine because of the risk to pregnant teachers. I asked if I should keep her home for 3 days after since it's a live virus vaccine, and the principal said he wouldn't tell me to do that. She would definitely be putting more teachers at risk then than any other random day when she didn't contract chicken pox at all (even after being in contact with someone who did). So there is lack of congruency in my personal experiences between the way children who are not vaccinated are seen and the way that children who have gotten live virus vaccines are seen. I have never heard a child should stay home from school after receiving the nasal mist (most of the school wouldn’t be allowed to go, I guess, since they promoted it in the school)....there is definitely a lack of knowledge on this front.

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 12:17 pm

op here responding.

hospital policies often state the obvious

if there were a threat to patients from healthy, unvaccinated visitors, the policy would include that

but it doesn't

yet it clearly acknowledges the risk posed by those recently vaccinated with live vaccines

Dolly Welsh wrote:

Well, that ought to be obvious. People who recently got the vaccines are indeed mildly sick with the disease, and might hurt those with poor immunity. Being mildly sick with a weakened form of the disease is exactly how you avoid getting the disease itself, later, with all the bad things that can bring, such as dying and so forth.

That's odd? It's normal.

They didn't mention the UNvaccinated - either because: they weren't addressing that issue, that's too many people, or they were plain scared to, because it has got so political - or - they will mention it tomorrow, when they get around to it. They were focusing on this one obvious thing now.

And it is obvious.

There is nothing weird here.

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 12:23 pm

op
I would have included the word "recent" in the title but it was too many characters -

note, however, that I used the phrase "recently vaccinated" in my post

and as I said to dolly above, I don't think anything "goes without saying" when it comes to hospital policies that affect people with compromised immune systems

also, I was not involved in ANY other vaccine thread so please respond only to what I actually posted, not what you assume/fear based on what anyone else has said elsewhere

Barbara wrote:

Ah, gotta love those incendiary titles.

No, the hospital does not say that no one who has ever been vaccinated may visit, as you suggest in your title. It says that those who may be infectious, due to recent vaccination, should not visit.

That's well known, and nothing that anyone denies.

It goes without saying that those who may be infectious because they are not vaccinated should also not visit.

But I don't hear the recently vaccinated screaming that immuno compromised persons should just sit home, it's not their problem, or, as an article I posted earlier quoting an anti-Vaxer stated, hey, people die, and if my recent vaccination kills you, it wouldn't bother me.

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 12:26 pm

as I said above, read my post - I said "recently vaccinated" - title didn't have enough characters to include that

also, you and many others misunderstand the meaning of herd immunity - it does not mean mass vaccination, it means that a majority of the population is actually IMMUNE, which is generally understood to mean they have had the illness already, since vaccination does not confer permanent immunity

yes, boosters help, but the reality is that there will always be many, many people who are not immune because of waning vaccine effectiveness or other reasons

so although people throw around the term "herd immunity," it is not really what people expect or assume it to mean

what you mean is that a certain critical mass of vaccinated people reduces the transmission of illness among that population

ora_43 wrote:

Your title is very misleading. There's a big difference between telling people not to visit while a live virus is in their system and saying "no vaccinated visitors."

As for why the less-concern over the unvaccinated - that is presumably linked to herd immunity, which has been discussed ad nauseam in the other dozen vaccination threads. Long story short: as long as most people are vaccinated, the odds of any person - vaccinated or not - carrying the illnesses most vaccinate for is relatively low. Certainly lower than the odds that someone is carrying it days after it's been injected into their system.

However, long term, a large group of unvaccinated individuals is a far greater threat to the immunocompromised than is the use of live virus vaccines. Especially since the threat posed by the latter can be dealt with simply by people being careful during the 1-4 weeks after getting the vaccine.