jeanmark

Considering the number of comments on this subject suggesting that we cull a number wild bird species that are perceived as a hazard or nuisance, well, I can think of a number of humans who could possibly also be culled for their anti-social behaviour. That to me is much more of a problem because they should be able to control their behaviour and habits but choose not to, where as birds merely react on instinct and the need to survive.

But children do not and that is the worry. We now have children with Type 2 Diabetes, a condition that usually occurs in later life, with all the problems this can cause. As one of the roles of the Government is choosing what to spend public money on that includes the NHS, I believe they have a degree of responsibility in helping control obesity and do not view that as "nanny state" interference.

Why believe it is a way of privatising the NHS? Surely it is a way of helping people find health information who may not be able to access the NHS website. It doesn't replace a health care professional or the NHS!

It appears we are both luckier than many people on this site. We were also pioneers in Patient Access having been involved in the initial trial and roll out. We also appear to have the same services, making it so much easier to access them. In our surgery is a jar of marbles that represent the number of missed appointment for the week along with the cost to the service, the jar is now nearly empty as a result.

Thanks for your explanation Billythequiche and I now understand where you are coming from. I have never felt the need to have an Alexa or any such device to do things for me, I have a husband for that! As to personal health information, I would never use any site that asks for such details but I have used NHS UK for specific information on minor issues, Pharmacists are also a great source for advice. Nationally, we have a crisis with a declining number of GP"s and so anything that can reduce their burden is okay with me. I am fortunate in having a Medical Practice that is very innovative in finding ways to deliver a quality service that will suit most people. They also have their own dispensary within the practice that delivers to the outlying villages free of charge! Take care.

I agree SallyG65, that is what I already do and don't feel I have a need for a device such as Alexa.

Yes but why use an emergency service when an alternative may give you an answer to your question? We already have a crisis with GP numbers so why stretch them further if an alternative is available. The NHS website (www.nhs.uk) is easily accessed and can help reduce the need for further consultation.

Billythequiche, the NHS website is not a commercial site but set up and funded by the Department of Health and Social Care. Its purpose is to give information on health related issues not to gather information about an individual. Many people access it and it is recorded as receiving more than 43 million visits a month. Many access it initially to judge if they need to seek professional help about a specific thing, not as a substitute for a medical consultation. I also feel an ID card would be great, but too many people appear to think they are so interesting that 'big 'brother' would monitoring everything they do!!

The NHS Website has more than 43 million visits per month. Having used information from the site on a regular basis, I have not encountered any problems and thus have no more concerns than when using any other official website. I have no interest in using Alexa but in practice, using such a device is no different than using your computer to browse and it is the individuals responsibly to ensure their device is as secure as possible.

That's the problem Vera, we have a crisis in recruiting GP's!

Billythequiche, it would be used to access information to help you to identify if an actual face to face consultation with a doctor was necessary, not as a substitute for more necessary professional opinion.

Dezzi, whilst understanding your concerns with regard to security, the information given will be that from the actual NHS Health site thus information will be as up to date as if you were using the website yourself.

Must be a good way of teaching right from wrong, my great nephews and nieces send both mum and dad to the naughty step if they consider they have misbehaved - they have even sent me when I have inadvertently used a banned word!

The question is too general as many chronic conditions require medication. I agree it is good therapy for certain conditions but will not replace medication for a large number of diseases.

That makes more sense now and yes, I agree they should be covered by a lid that protect the content until needed.

I have never seen the programme but I understand the suicides happened at least two years after appearing on the programme so it may be a little unfair to assume the programme was the cause. Mind you I had never watched the Jeremy Kyle programme either but both attracted wide audiences.

But surely we are advised to wash all fruit and vegetables before use, a good practice to adopt whether wrapped or not. As to 'germs', well they can be spread in all kinds of ways, just standing in a queue is risky!

I don't believe the state is trying to interfere with a parents right to choose except when a community as a whole may be affected by one persons decision. On the whole, vaccines have saved countless lives in the world and continue to help reduce the risk from more virulent infections. Unfortunately there will be a small number of individuals who may come to harm and that is tragic for them and their loved ones. However, that is why protocols and guidelines are reviewed and revise to try and prevent further harm. How do we control certain infections that can save a child's life if we refuse too use the very thing that evidence indicates has worked for the majority?

I have been doing that for a number of months and it is so easy to take you own containers plus paper bags. Frozen food etc usually have utensils to use. Waitress has started but many supermarkets would oblige if you took your own containers.

I have to agree Marley444, the bursary for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals was stopped by this government with few having any hope of being high earners. It has been reported that we have over 40,000 nursing post vacant so how do we now encourage more to apply when all they see is debt? When people discuss degrees they tend to forget public servants such as nurses and teachers need degrees!

Sciences does provide data, not to be confused with industry. I try not to focus on the profit making pharmaceutical companies but rather the medical and scientific people who work to fight such infections. It isn't just about industries but scientific progress in the field of medicine. I certainly understand risk v benefit, it was a daily occurrence for me when working. I do believe in vaccines as I spent a large part of my career witnessing the results. I find it a little sad that you do not believe in vaccines as a whole as we have come so far in preventive work as a result of them. I assume you would discourage young girls from getting the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that can protect them from a high-risk type of HPV that has been found to cause the most common cancer in women under 35.

In general vaccines are effective at reducing the incidence and severity of vaccine-preventable diseases but no vaccine is 100% effective against a viral infection. It is also recognise that the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine is the least effective of the three components, providing 88% effectiveness. If I recall the MMR vaccine was introduced in 1971 and outbreaks decreased as a result. The Wakefield report caused a great deal of panic and as a result take-up of MMR vaccination decreased with a noted increase of outbreaks. Now I may be rather naive but I believe there is correlation between the two. There will always be documented outbreaks of viral and other infections in close knit communities, such as the military, but these tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Do you have the same beliefs regarding all vaccinations?

And now there has been a significant increase in mumps cases along with continuing outbreaks of measles. There were 795 cases of mumps in the first three months of 2019, compared with 1,031 in the whole of 2018 with young adults being affected. Do people still believe vaccination should not be made compulsory but the decision left to parents?

Be fair REKS, people are individuals and taste is very subjective. Having said that I don't drink but in the past I have drunk expensive and cheap wine both of which tasted terrible.....

This debate is not discussing the companies that produce the vaccine but its use in trying to prevent outbreaks. You obviously do not consider there is a link between the reduction in children being vaccinated and an increase in outbreaks of measles. If 50 years of a vaccines success has not convinced you of its value I am not sure what will.

If we lived in an idea world, then I would agree but we do not. One problem is that not everyone has the capacity to carry out research and truly understand what the issues are to enable them to make an informed choice. That is why we need experts in the actual field to guide us and I do not mean using social media etc to help make such important decisions. How many parents do you know that have weighed up everything about the future needs of a child before producing one. The majority of parents I know did not really understand the reality of things until the child was actually born, even those who are informed and planned for the event. I do believe that in general, a parent should decided on what is best for their child. However, what happens when their decision could have an impact on others within the community, in such cases is the individual of more importance.

The Oxford Dictionary defines Critical Thinking as "The process of analysing information in an objective way, in order to make a judgement about it". I have always found that people can find it difficult to make a rational, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence when a loved one is involved, particularly when they do not have the expert knowledge and understanding of the the information they trying analyse.

Not something I would have looked at, although the professors I worked with would have. They would also have been involved in advising the government on what was needed based their knowledge and experience. I do know I could never understand those people who contracted malaria whilst on holiday because they couldn't be bothered to continue, or even start, prophylactic medication to prevent it. Interestingly, many said they had listen to friends who didn't believe in such things, even though an expert had advised it! It is also worth recognising that many people will not have to check FCO guidelines as they will be local to that area, and not travellers. Even following the guidelines is not a guarantee of being free from risk of contacting certain conditions.

Well thetruth67, I think we are coming from different directions and will probably not find a middle ground. Having worked in the field of Infectious Disease, Tropical Medicine and HIV for many years, I witnessed the devastation that an infectious disease can cause to an individual and their family. As a result, I am probably less likely to accept that vaccines are more dangerous than the disease it is trying to prevent.

I believe they were awarded funding by UK Research and Innovation through the UK government's Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF) Medicines Manufacturing challenge, and is led by the Jenner Institute. It is based at the Churchill Hospital, Oxford. As to aluminium, my understanding is that because of the amount of aluminium in the environment you are more likely to ingest it via food and water than you would actually get from receiving vaccines. I agree there are those that would object to foetal cells from aborted foetuses being used to help research vaccines but there are also those that would support lives being saved as result.

I think most deaths from measles occur in developing countries where many may not have received the vaccine. There is a misunderstanding that a vaccines give 100% immunity, it doesn't. What it does do is reduce the chances when exposed to the infection and helps reduce the risk of a severe infection. I agree how do you define safe? Any medicine, in what ever form, may cause harm to an individual but we still use them. If you look at all adverse reactions that are true reactions to the actual drug, the number would still be small when compared to the number who benefitted from the drug. It will always be a risk/benefit analysis. The MHRA collects data under the Yellow Card system. Try The Oxford Vaccine Project although I am sure it will not change your thoughts.

I agree the data remans relevant but it is important to identify what the actual cause of the adverse reaction was, whether it is true adverse reaction that is intrinsic to the vaccine, or another cause such as the way it administered. That is why I believe one should be cautious about quoting statistics without background information. Of the statistics you have quoted there were 479 deaths, 656 life threatening and 1320 permanent disability against 56,555 reported reactions during a one year period, but you have given no indication of how many vaccines were actual given over that period or if they related to a specific vaccine such as measles. That would give some idea of frequency of reactions to all or any vaccine to inform parents who are trying to make the decision. In the UK it is the job of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to monitor drug adverse reactions.

Would it not better to use UK data when encouraging people to make an informed choice, it uses the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of adverse event.

I'm not sure what vaccine that child received in 1947 (possibly diphtheria or whooping Cough) but the first licensed vaccine to prevent measles didn't become available until 1963, with an improved measles vaccine introduced in 1968. The MMR vaccine was introduced in 1988. These days guidelines are strict on those children that should be excluded from being vaccinated because of some underlying problem or a family history of certain allergies.

AndjelkaG, I agree that exposure to an infection, particularly in a family setting, does not necessarily mean you will automatically develop the disease, but you may develop a degree of immunity. However, outbreaks of childhood infections do occur and those who have not been vaccinated are at greater risk of developing the infection, but at greater risk are those children unable to be vaccinated because of an underlying disorder and not just immunocompromised children and adults. I am sorry your son developed the infection as vaccines contain a very weak strain of the virus and are rarely infectious to others. It is true that vaccination is no guarantee of total protection, but it does usually meant the infection is less severe, otherwise why bother with any vaccination. This debate appears to focus on the single child rather than looking at the wider picture of the community, but it is a everyone within that community that can suffer as a result of any outbreak.

JinxB, there are some children that have to have single vaccines for a number of reasons. However, for those that can receive MMR but who's parent object, surely a single vaccine is better, posing a lower risk to vulnerable children than no vaccination.

As measles is predominately a childhood disease, the emphases for this debate is on children having the vaccine as that is considered to pose the greater risk of any outbreaks.

JacquelineG47, it is the other way round. If a child does not have the vaccine but is able to, there is an increased risk to a child unable to receive vaccine. As to vaccines with live virus, the virus is a much weaker strain and thus is not a risk to healthy people. The more people vaccinated the less likelihood there is of large outbreaks.

In respect for your communications I will watch but I'm not sure it will necessarily change my way of thinking but will give it a try, I have a great deal of respect and confidence in the experts who taught me so much and work tirelessly to try to tackle the devastation caused by many infectious disease, all have open minds. I also have an understand of how social changes contributed to changes to certain disease patterns.

Parents do have a choice but some are refusing the single vaccine as well.