Reading a recently resurrected thread raised a real question on vaccines. Do I need to find out if I need boosters?
I had most, but not, I think, all of the previously common childhood diseases; I also had at least two vaccines. I do not have my childhood medical records, so all I am certain of is that I had the rubella disease and the small pox vaccine. I doubt I had diphtheria.
I’ve never had any boosters, because, well, it just didn’t seem necessary. There weren’t any outbreaks around me, all the kids I knew got vaccinated, I don’t work with children or ill people …
However, with the recent outbreaks, most notably in whooping cough and measles, I wonder if I should get blood tests to identify which diseases I had, and which ones I was vaccinated against and might need boosters for?
There are a crop of new babies in my life that I do not want to endanger by being a vector. And measles just might be one of the diseases I did not get.
Are there any epidemiologists out there who know how important this could be?
Born before 1957 (I presume) you likely had measles are are considered immune.
Without question you should have a Tdap for the sake of the little ones in your life (protects them from you exposing them to the whooping cough bug, pertussis, which is what the “p” stands for) and to protect you from tetanus.
Flu vaccine annually to protect them if not yourself.
Here is the chart (pdf) from the CDC showing who you should get immunized. There is text at the bottom that goes into more detail on each vaccine.
I don’t get this 1957 business. The CDC says that people born before are considered immune from measles and mumps (but not rubella). But “considered immune” is a lot different than “are immune.” While a lot of people born before 1957 had mumps and measles, it wasn’t 100% of the population.
And, in any case, separate measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines are not available in the United States. Not legally, at least. So if you take their word for it that you are immune from mumps and measles, despite the fact that neither you nor your parents remember you having the diseases, you still have to get the MMR vaccine to protect yourself against rubella. So it seems to me a waste of time worrying about whether you were born before 1957.
Also, I don’t think it’s worthwhile getting tests to determine if you are immune. If there is doubt, just get the vaccine. Why go through a blood draw, have to schedule and pay for another doctor’s office visit, and then get the vaccine? Just skip the first two steps.
Well, thank you very much. I will dig up the vaccinations I got for overseas travel and bring the schedule to my doctor and decide which ones are advisable in my circumstances.
I wasn’t born before 1957, but my siblings were; lord, I hope I had measles and mumps.
Thanks for the link; I really should spend more time on the CDC website.
Rubella is the one thing I am sure of; I had rubella. So of course, if I want to protect against the 2 diseases I am least certain about, mumps and measles, I would have to take a shot I don’t need. (This is Wakefield’s fault.)
I do spend a fair amount of time on the FDA website, so I am very reluctant to take any drug unnecessarily, especially ones with such low profit margins as vaccines. No drug is one hundred percent safe, one should do a careful risk analysis before taking any medication, especially an injectable, etc., etc.
(I am so annoyed. I went through the fevers and rashes and aches, I was exposed to the admittedly reasonable risks of vaccinations once, I do not work with at risk populations, yet now, in my venerable old age, I am forced to exposed myself to additional - admittedly low - risk just to be a responsible citizen. I could just spit.
Except that might increase others’ risk. Oh, damn.)