Rotavirus | ExpatWoman.com
 

Rotavirus

168
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 01 August 2011 - 14:43

My son is still recovering from Rotavirus, my husband and myself are just on the mend from it!
I had never heard of this in the UK, don't know if it is named something else there?? but there was never any vaccination offered over there for it.
Seeing how ill it made my son and knowing first hand how it feels (trust me, it's very awful) I would like to try and prevent him getting this again.
He is 7m old, i have read they offer a vaccination for this at 2m and 4m, is there anything available for my sons age?

1861
Posts
EW EXPERT
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 20:02
soooooo.... does this mean that DD's last OPV was probably a waste of time considering I breastfed her just before and right after cause before she was thirsty and then after v upset?!! :D hehe - who knows! That's the thing really too isn't it - if our kids don't manage to contract x, y or z, then we'll never know if it's because the vaccine warded it off, breastfeeding warded it off or if they simply were never exposed to it. Some people would use it as a compelling argument for vaccinations, others as one for natural antibodies... I just have to research things a bit more when the person advocating something plays on a very emotive "what if" argument [i'>and[/i'> is likely to profit from it.
Anonymous (not verified)
0
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 18:17
soooooo.... does this mean that DD's last OPV was probably a waste of time considering I breastfed her just before and right after cause before she was thirsty and then after v upset?!! :D
2782
Posts
EW EXPERT
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 17:49
I can't see how this can be described as "back end deal broking" as has been implied. I think that was a reference to the fact (?) that the chap on the American approved board who was driving the approval for the Rotavirus vaccine had failed to mention that he also owned the rights to it. Pharmaceuticals are big business! Anyhow, I really, really don't have a militant stance on vaccinations. I know what I'm following and why and quite frankly, that's all that counts, just as your opinion on it is right for you and your family. I have friends who have gone for everything under the sun without questioning them and others (OK, one other) whose nearly-4-year-old hasn't had any vaccinations at all (and thankfully he hasn't caught anything). Who am I to question or judge another person't [i'>informed[/i'> decision or to say that it's wrong? The point is, to inform ourselves. Have heard about that, just not sure how it applies to the vaccine being adopted in other countries. Anyway i agree with you, its good to be informed. I have personally modified my DS's schedule to better fit his circumstances, for example he had no vaccines at birth and have been reading up a lot recently on timing of MMR and maternal antibodies etc. Its good to be informed, and I don't have a militant stance either, I just felt the need to point out what the links actually said, as I felt it differed from DB's interpretation and not everybody will take the time to read them. lets all be friends again, and nobody bring up pox-parties ;)
1861
Posts
EW EXPERT
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 17:35
I can't see how this can be described as "back end deal broking" as has been implied. I think that was a reference to the fact (?) that the chap on the American approved board who was driving the approval for the Rotavirus vaccine had failed to mention that he also owned the rights to it. Pharmaceuticals are big business! Anyhow, I really, really don't have a militant stance on vaccinations. I know what I'm following and why and quite frankly, that's all that counts, just as your opinion on it is right for you and your family. I have friends who have gone for everything under the sun without questioning them and others (OK, one other) whose nearly-4-year-old hasn't had any vaccinations at all (and thankfully he hasn't caught anything). Who am I to question or judge another person't [i'>informed[/i'> decision or to say that it's wrong? The point is, to inform ourselves.
2782
Posts
EW EXPERT
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 17:12
I don't think its correct to sat you are "extremely contagious" after a live rotovirus or polio vaccine though, you are given a very weakened strain and there is a very small risk that someone immunocompromised could become ill from that, but not the general public, unlike if you actually had rotovirus in which case you are very contagious to those you are in direct contact with. just reading up on both - one site said that polio is so contagious that it's estimated to spread to 100% of the children that the infected person comes in contact with and 90% of all adults. The consequences of polio can hardly be likened to those of rotavirus (nasty, but temporary and no lasting damage)... The same site estimated that by age 3, everyone - vaccinated or not - will have caught rotavirus at least once. As for the live vaccine and breastfeeding, the point is that the antibodies in breastmilk are so strong that they kill off the live vaccine without it even taking hold. Live vaccines work by introducing your body's immune system to the nasty stuff in a controlled way, so that it holds it in memory, but if your immune system is already strong, it's going to whoop it's a$$ anyway. Soooo... yeah, sure, inject away, but from what Designbabe has linked, it won't do anything. I wasn't the one who linked polio and rotavirus, DB meantioned it when talking about live vaccines and said the rotavirus, like the live polio carried a risk of transfer, and I commented on live vaccines and potential transfer, I don't think anyone has said anything else about polio or compared its consequences to rotavirus have they, why would they? DB has linked to a study showing the immune response is sometimes less if the mother is breastfeeding at the time of vaccination, I don't see anything in those links that say the vaccine will be completely ineffective, even if there is a lower response to some strains. Unless you are specifically measuring your own antibodies, how would you know if your own milk is protecting your child/preventing the vaccine response from being as strong? They recently found lower titres in vaccine responses when mothers had given their children paracetemol to prevent a fever, that doesn't translate to, the vaccines were a waste of time. MMR vaccines are delayed in NZ until 15 months because due to maternal antibodies, the response is stronger than if given at 12 months as in the UK, this gets weighed up against risk I guess, its not that simple. So again, my personal choice was to avail of an "optional" vaccine, all vaccines are optional where I come from, some are publicly funded (free) and this is often based on how much money it cost the government if a large number of the community becomes ill etc. The latest recommendations from the expert review back home are that the vaccine be included in the free schedule, based on its effectiveness in other countries, I can't see how this can be described as "back end deal broking" as has been implied, either way, am happy that I made the right decision for my child.
1861
Posts
EW EXPERT
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 16:34
I don't think its correct to sat you are "extremely contagious" after a live rotovirus or polio vaccine though, you are given a very weakened strain and there is a very small risk that someone immunocompromised could become ill from that, but not the general public, unlike if you actually had rotovirus in which case you are very contagious to those you are in direct contact with. just reading up on both - one site said that polio is so contagious that it's estimated to spread to 100% of the children that the infected person comes in contact with and 90% of all adults. The consequences of polio can hardly be likened to those of rotavirus (nasty, but temporary and no lasting damage)... The same site estimated that by age 3, everyone - vaccinated or not - will have caught rotavirus at least once. As for the live vaccine and breastfeeding, the point is that the antibodies in breastmilk are so strong that they kill off the live vaccine without it even taking hold. Live vaccines work by introducing your body's immune system to the nasty stuff in a controlled way, so that it holds it in memory, but if your immune system is already strong, it's going to whoop it's a$$ anyway. Soooo... yeah, sure, inject away, but from what Designbabe has linked, it won't do anything.
168
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 15:02
Sorry Lukas hit ''add message'' :) everyones opinions. Thanks once more for the advice.
168
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 15:02
I have never, ever heard of Rotavirus until Lukas contracted it last week. I have asked all my family and friends back in the Uk and neither had they! If i had of known of it, i would have personally got him the vaccination, especially now seeing how ill it has made him :( Vaccinations are everyones individual choice and i
79
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 13:38
Fair enough. I come from one of those countries where the Rotavirus vaccine is not mandatory. Saying that, I have so many friends at home whose LO's either have been or are hospitalized because of rotavirus. So I am glad my LO had the vaccine as we are heading back home next week. Not comparing polio with rotavirus, think we all realize there is a big difference. I was talking about vaccines in general and not comparing.;)
2782
Posts
EW EXPERT
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 13:36
a child getting the vaccine can and usually does spread the disease . where are you getting that from? can you give some evidence to show how children are spreading rotovirus from the vaccine? I don't see it in what you have already posted.
2782
Posts
EW EXPERT
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 13:33
I would guess that exclusive breastfeeding PLUS the vaccine would give the most protection of all :), I am glad my EBF son had the vaccine as I've had a few friends with hospitalised little ones due to Rotavirus so I was pleased to be offered the option. There was a recall, I think the year before last, but not because the vaccines were found to be harmful in any way. It is personal choice though, and my son did get quite a high fever afterwards compared to any other vaccine, but still worth it in my mind and I would encourage others to consider it. I'm much more concerned about the recent measles epidemics back home, will definitely be giving my son the MMR vaccine before we go back for Xmas, breastfeeding won't help him with that one. :( I'm not critisizing your choice or anyones for that matter. However, the implication that if some parents choose after whatever research not to have one or more of the many optional vaccines on offer today fro our really young babies, that they are endangering other babies is not a nice assumption espcially since it is not true. Fecal shedding of vaccine virus was evaluated in a subset of persons enrolled in the phase III trials. Vaccine virus was shed by 9% of 360 infants after dose 1, but none of 249 and 385 infants after doses 2 and 3, respectively. Shedding was observed as early as 1 day and as late as 15 days after a dose. The potential for transmission of vaccine virus was not assessed. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/rota.pdf from the cdc's own pink book on rotavirus vaccine- all live vaccines shed for upto 21 days sometimes, so vaccinated babies are very contagious and could potentially infect other children- it's not just the children who have not recieved the vaccine. Also in the case of the rotavirus vaccine- as it is live, the mother's anitbodies in milk prevented suitable formation of antibodies in vaccinated infants- but those same antibodies also prevent the infection iteslf. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20442687 It makes logical sense that very high IgA levels of rotavirus neutralizing antibodies in breast-milk, would result in babies not developing high levels of antibodies against an oral rotavirus vaccine, right? The conclusions of a recent study was that lots of studies should look at stopping mothers breastfeeding before and after vaccination, to overcome this "negative effect”. So actually exclusively b/f and the vaccine is not better. It is better to give the vaccine when you are not b/f and then ensure your child does not mix too much with oter babies for 21 days after to prevent transmission . I actually wasn't criticizing her choice or making assumptions, not sure why you thought I was ?, quite the opposite I was saying its personal choice and that I would encourage others to CONSIDER it. I am grateful for the vaccines we have available to us today but I do carefully consider when/if/why he will get each one as I would expect most parents to do. It is true though that the current measles epidemics would be less likely if there was a higher vaccination rate and I would feel more comfortable letting my baby play with vaccinated children for that reason. Are you saying that having the rotovirus vaccine while breastfeeding would result in a less protected child than not vaccinating at all? Assuming that the risk of contracting rotavirus was not increased by the combo of vaccinating and breastfeeding (and I don't see how it could be), what I said was correct, you would get the highest potential level of protection from a combo of the 2 rather than EBF without the vaccine. Even if you got a stronger immune response from stopping breastfeeding for 21 days, clearly you wouldn't do this as you would lose the many other benefits. I don't think that is actually being recommended by anyone is it? I don't think its correct to sat you are "extremely contagious" after a live rotovirus or polio vaccine though, you are given a very weakened strain and there is a very small risk that someone immunocompromised could become ill from that, but not the general public, unlike if you actually had rotovirus in which case you are very contagious to those you are in direct contact with.
142
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 13:22
To each his own.. At the end of the day vaccines are there to protect our babies to improve their immunity against really bad diseases out there. People tend to forget what the effects of these diseases are.Most of us have grown up in a time that we didn't have friends with these diseases, so people tend to forget that these vaccine-preventable diseases can be really, really deadly. Oh and by the way designbabe, I also EBF my LO and only want the best for her. Dont we all? We might not always agree on what is the best, as we all have different views. I love that- to each his own and individual choice. Nobody has forgotten deadly diseases but i grew up in the '80's and babies were not dying like flies of epidemics of rotavirus then either and there was no vaccine for it.People laughed off chicken pox as there was no vax for that either. Most first world countries do not mandate rotavirus though there is lot of back end deal broking going on right now to try and include it - however it remains optional for a reason i.e that it is not one of the "deadly" diseases that i support wholeheartedly that everyone get vaccinated for. 27 of 29 first world countries besides the United States DO NOT think Rotavirus is an important enough disease that the children of their country should receive a vaccine for it, even though a vaccine has been available for over a decade. The only comment I have a probelem with is the assumption that a child not vaccinated for rotavirus is a potential danger to other children and can spread the disease....when even a child getting the vaccine can and usually does spread the disease and quite often gets rotavirus too, sometimes from the vaccine itself. All diseases are not equal and neither are all vaccines. Manufacturers produce them to sell them for profit. Parents use them to protect their children. It is our individual right to decide what we feel is important to be given to our children based on our unique circumstances and I don't think equating polio with rotavirus is right as it is not a fair comparison.
79
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 12:58
To each his own.. At the end of the day vaccines are there to protect our babies to improve their immunity against really bad diseases out there. People tend to forget what the effects of these diseases are.Most of us have grown up in a time that we didn't have friends with these diseases, so people tend to forget that these vaccine-preventable diseases can be really, really deadly. Oh and by the way designbabe, I also EBF my LO and only want the best for her. Dont we all? We might not always agree on what is the best, as we all have different views.
1861
Posts
EW EXPERT
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 12:17
The conclusions of a recent study was that lots of studies should look at stopping mothers breastfeeding before and after vaccination, to overcome this "negative effect”. Good lord, what [i'>have[/i'> we come to when it's recommended to stop doing healthy things in order to pump our children full of more nasties?! I'm aghast that Drs seem to be propagating a blanket approach, regardless of whether the vaccine is effective or not for that particular baby. Again, and always, whether or not to do a vaccine should be a decision based on incidence, risk and consequence (either in doing it or not).
142
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 11:52
I would guess that exclusive breastfeeding PLUS the vaccine would give the most protection of all :), I am glad my EBF son had the vaccine as I've had a few friends with hospitalised little ones due to Rotavirus so I was pleased to be offered the option. There was a recall, I think the year before last, but not because the vaccines were found to be harmful in any way. It is personal choice though, and my son did get quite a high fever afterwards compared to any other vaccine, but still worth it in my mind and I would encourage others to consider it. I'm much more concerned about the recent measles epidemics back home, will definitely be giving my son the MMR vaccine before we go back for Xmas, breastfeeding won't help him with that one. :( I'm not critisizing your choice or anyones for that matter. However, the implication that if some parents choose after whatever research not to have one or more of the many optional vaccines on offer today fro our really young babies, that they are endangering other babies is not a nice assumption espcially since it is not true. Fecal shedding of vaccine virus was evaluated in a subset of persons enrolled in the phase III trials. Vaccine virus was shed by 9% of 360 infants after dose 1, but none of 249 and 385 infants after doses 2 and 3, respectively. Shedding was observed as early as 1 day and as late as 15 days after a dose. The potential for transmission of vaccine virus was not assessed. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/rota.pdf from the cdc's own pink book on rotavirus vaccine- all live vaccines shed for upto 21 days sometimes, so vaccinated babies are very contagious and could potentially infect other children- it's not just the children who have not recieved the vaccine. Also in the case of the rotavirus vaccine- as it is live, the mother's anitbodies in milk prevented suitable formation of antibodies in vaccinated infants- but those same antibodies also prevent the infection iteslf. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20442687 It makes logical sense that very high IgA levels of rotavirus neutralizing antibodies in breast-milk, would result in babies not developing high levels of antibodies against an oral rotavirus vaccine, right? The conclusions of a recent study was that lots of studies should look at stopping mothers breastfeeding before and after vaccination, to overcome this "negative effect”. So actually exclusively b/f and the vaccine is not better. It is better to give the vaccine when you are not b/f and then ensure your child does not mix too much with oter babies for 21 days after to prevent transmission .
2782
Posts
EW EXPERT
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 11:30
I would guess that exclusive breastfeeding PLUS the vaccine would give the most protection of all :), I am glad my EBF son had the vaccine as I've had a few friends with hospitalised little ones due to Rotavirus so I was pleased to be offered the option. There was a recall, I think the year before last, but not because the vaccines were found to be harmful in any way. It is personal choice though, and my son did get quite a high fever afterwards compared to any other vaccine, but still worth it in my mind and I would encourage others to consider it. I'm much more concerned about the recent measles epidemics back home, will definitely be giving my son the MMR vaccine before we go back for Xmas, breastfeeding won't help him with that one. :(
142
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 11:06
You are glad she didnt get the rotavirus vaccination? Lets hope your LO does not get Rotavirus and pass it on to other babies. You dont want to put any little baby through that. The rotavirus vaccine is a live oral vaccine which sheds (like the old oral polio vaccine) for upto 21 days - i.e the babies given the same have a greater chance of spreading it to other babies when vaccinated with it. Also, studies have shown that exclusive breastfeeding offers greater protection against rotavirus- a water borne virus - than any vaccine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20617343 2. H.S. Maranhão, et al., “The epidemiological and clinical characteristics and nutritional development of infants with acute diarrhoea, in north-eastern Brazil,” Ann Trop Med Parasitol, 2008 Jun;102(4):357-65. Yet, a study of Brazilian children finds that exclusive breastfeeding cuts diarrhea cases in this similarly developing nation by a whopping 90% (1 / 9.41), versus a diet of formula and/or other foods.(2) FYI shaf is a strong b/f advocate and her DD is exlusively B/F. Both my DS's are B/f exclusively and my DS1 is 3 and DS2 is 15 months. neither has recieved the vax and neither has had rotavirus. Also the vax was recalled here last year as both strains were contaminated with *** virus http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2827126/glaxosmithkline_recalls_rotarix_rotavirus.html
79
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 03 August 2011 - 08:07
You are glad she didnt get the rotavirus vaccination? Lets hope your LO does not get Rotavirus and pass it on to other babies. You dont want to put any little baby through that.
429
Posts
EW EXPLORER
Latest post on 02 August 2011 - 21:43
my DD is 5.5 months old today.. and i just started her vaccinations 2 weeks back. She was not given rotavirus because after 4-5 months apparently there is no point in giving it. Eitherways i am glad, i dint want her to take it.
168
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 01 August 2011 - 19:26
Thanks Snowflake 12, the link was useful.
168
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 01 August 2011 - 19:20
Thanks everyone. I hope he never gets it again!!! Awful, awful thing!!!!
79
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 01 August 2011 - 17:25
You have to request and pay extra for it. Babies have to complete 3 doses before 7 months, there after its too late. http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccines/rotavirus
2782
Posts
EW EXPERT
Latest post on 01 August 2011 - 17:13
It's the leading cause of hospitalization for under twos, my son had the vaccine at 2 and 4 months and I'm glad he did but we would have had to pay for it back home although as I said, looks like it will become one of the free ones soon.
55
Posts
EW NEWBIE
Latest post on 01 August 2011 - 17:05
It is called Rotavirus in the UK as well and no they don't offer the vaccination. My god daughter had it and when her mum asked why she could not have been vaccinated against it, the response was along the lines of all children get it at some point or have been exposed to it. Someone I met her said that their clinic insisted on vaccinating her baby but when I phoned the Cooper Clinic they said my daughter didn't need it??
2782
Posts
EW EXPERT
Latest post on 01 August 2011 - 15:41
I think the vaccine will be part of the UK schedule within a few years, looks like it will soon be included in the NZ one and they seem to follow similar guidelines for publicly funding vaccines. He could have the vaccines at 7 months, but I'm not sure if there is a point if he has already had the virus, although I think it covers several strains. I think they don't offer it after a child is over 2 years as they figure they will already have been exposed and its not as dangerous.
 
 

ON EXPATWOMAN TODAY