| MMR hysteria?
We opted to have single jabs - at our own cost - rather than the combined ones.
Reasons:
1. Combined live vaccines are not allowed on racehorses. If it's good enough for Shergar it's good enough for me.
2. There is no 2
3. We decided what level of risk we were ready to accept. If it was for me, I would have a much higher tolerance to risk levels; for a 13 month old child in my care I have an extremely low tolerance to risk.
It's not really a very compelling or conclusive argument, is it! If we hadn't had the money available at the time, or it was more expensive than it was, we may have required a greater justification but as it turned out, 2 succesive redundancy payments in 2 years left enough in the pot.
Is this a question of belief? Or proof? I think it's a straight risk analysis. The risk may have an extremely low likelihood but a huge impact. I, for one, will think long and hard about the effect these results from Japan have on the likelihood element of the risk before deciding whether future children have the singles or the combined. But I won't be swayed by the Daily Mail, that's for certain!
__________________
The first rule of diving: Anyone can call the dive for any reason.
|