Measles surge shows why vaccinations are crucial
Immunisation uptake across adult, adolescent and childhood vaccines has decreased in the UK and internationally for almost every vaccine (UK worst in G7 for MMR jab rates, as 30m children worldwide not fully immunised, 15 July). This should raise major alarms for global health. There is misinformation and vaccine hesitancy, and we face a lack of knowledge regarding the importance of vaccines.
We also need to deliver vaccines beyond standard healthcare settings. The UK's school-based human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine programme for adolescents has been successful in increasing uptake, and similar programmes for childhood and adult vaccines in equivalent settings could be trialled. The government's 10‑year NHS plan proposes a new health visitor model to encourage vaccinations in communities. This is a commendable step towards increasing vaccination uptake. It could also help address broader issues around misinformation, hesitancy and inequalities in uptake.
This, along with taking a long-term view to prevention, are critical components of revitalising uptake and protecting public health.Simon BrasselSenior principal economist, Office of Health Economics
It is heartbreaking that some children are seriously sick and a child has died from measles. Vaccines are the most successful and effective public health measures against infectious diseases. Measles is a highly contagious acute viral respiratory infection that is a primary cause of morbidity and mortality among infants and children under five, especially those with a compromised immune system or malnourished.
Measles can lead to serious complications such as pneumonia, encephalitis, dehydration, ear infections, diarrhoea and irreversible vision loss. More than 90% of susceptible individuals around an infected person can catch the virus.
Vaccine hesitancy is one of the top 10 global health threats, on par with climate change, HIV/Aids and lethal pathogens. It's time to raise awareness about the importance of vaccinations in combating infectious diseases, saving lives and protecting children, families and society.Dr Munjed Farid Al QutobWillesden Green, London
Melanie Pilcher of the Early Years Alliance says of children in nurseries who are not vaccinated against measles: 'It wouldn't be right to turn children away because it is a parental choice at the end of the day, and we have to respect that' (Nurseries in England bring in Covid-style protocols as measles cases rise, 19 July). No, you do not have to respect that choice because it is a shortsighted, dangerous and potentially deadly choice. Dangerous to the parents' own child and to the children around that child. In response, public health authorities must step up neighbourhood vaccination clinics, bringing the vaccine to families rather than demanding that families come to clinics. Matthew K BelmonteSheffield
Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Shop-bought health testing kits 'inaccurate and unsuitable', study says
Home health tests bought by people seeking answers about their conditions could give inaccurate and misleading results and require much greater regulation to ensure they are safe, reliable, and effective, researchers have bowel cancer to the menopause, shop-bought health kits now test for a wide range of conditions and are readily available on high streets and in supermarkets across the two new studies, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), say many of the kits lack crucial information, such as who should use them, how to interpret the results, and what steps to take response, the regulator which oversees medical devices in the UK, MHRA, says it is "overhauling" safety standards. Researchers at the University of Birmingham collected and analysed 30 self-test kits, costing between £1.89 and £39.99, in 2023. These included tests for conditions such as bowel cancer, vitamin deficiencies, thyroid issues, HIV, and the researchers concluded that only 14 of the kits they looked at included any statement about accuracy, and fewer than a quarter gave clear guidance on next steps after receiving a also found that nearly half advised users to consult a healthcare professional regardless of the result, something experts warn could place additional pressure on NHS Jon Deeks, who led the research, said current regulations do not go far enough to protect consumers. "Self-tests have a clear potential to improve public health. However, for them to be beneficial and not harmful, they must be proven to be accurate, easy to use, and supported by clear instructions," he said. Self-testing has been around in the UK for more than 50 years in the form of pregnancy tests, first introduced in 1971. During the Covid lockdown, lateral flow tests for Covid became common. Neither was included in the University of Birmingham research, published by the BMJ. "When integrated appropriately into clinical pathways, self-tests have been shown to increase uptake of testing in underserved groups," say the the BMJ warns that offering self-testing based on the ability to pay, rather than clinical need, risks "widening inequalities and the exploitation of vulnerable population groups". Bernie Croal, President of the Royal College of Pathologists, told the BMJ poor-quality testing could lead to both "false reassurance" and "unnecessary consequences" for the UK self-test market is expected to grow significantly, with revenues forecast to reach £660m by 2030."Direct-to-consumer tests may be appealing to the public, as they can provide diagnostic results quickly, offering privacy, confidentiality, and autonomy over healthcare decisions," says the authors classified 60% of the tests they looked at as "high risk".While most kits carried claims of high accuracy, some above 98%, the researchers say supporting evidence was often not made publicly available. Although manufacturers are not currently required by law to publish clinical performance data, the BMJ calls for greater transparency. The Royal College of General Practitioners has also called for more openness in the Burt, Head of Diagnostics and General Medical Devices at MHRA, said it is examining the research, "We're exploring new transparency measures such as requiring published summaries of clinical evidence."In the meantime, we strongly encourage anyone using a self-test to check for a CE or UKCA mark, read the instructions carefully, and seek medical advice if they're unsure about their result".
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Walking 7,000 steps a day is enough to boost health
Walking 7,000 steps a day may be enough to protect against a number of diseases, a new study suggests. While many people have the goal to get 10,000 steps in their daily routine, some find this target difficult to achieve. But new research suggests 'sizeable' health benefits – including a reduced risk of dementia, heart disease and premature death – can still be seen from fewer daily steps. Even modest step counts of 4,000 steps a day can reap benefits over very low levels of activity, experts found. But experts noted that '10,000 steps per day will still be better than 7,000 steps' – with the higher step count leading to more health benefits. The new study, led by academics from the University of Sydney in Australia, saw researchers examine data from dozens of studies from around the world, including in the UK, on tens of thousands of adults. People who walked 7,000 steps each day appeared to have a protective effect against a number of diseases including: a 25% lower risk of heart disease; a 14% reduced risk of type 2 diabetes; a 38% lower risk of dementia and 22% reduced risk of depression. The researchers also found that when people walked 7,000 daily steps, compared to walking 2,000 steps, they were 47% less likely to die during the follow-up periods of the studies analysed. And while the number of steps walked did not sway whether or not a person got cancer, people who walked more steps were significantly less likely to die from cancer – with 37% lower odds of cancer death compared to people who walked fewer steps. 'Although 10 000 steps per day can still be a viable target for those who are more active, 7,000 steps per day is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in health outcomes and might be a more realistic and achievable target for some,' the authors wrote in the journal Lancet Public Health. They added: 'Even modest daily step counts were associated with health benefits. '7,000 steps per day was associated with sizeable risk reductions across most outcomes, compared with the reference of 2,000 steps per day.' Commenting on the study, Dr Daniel Bailey, Reader – Sedentary Behaviour and Health, Brunel University of London, said: 'The finding that doing 5000-7000 steps per day is an important addition to the literature which helps to debunk the myth that 10,000 steps per day should be the target for optimal health. 'This study suggested that 5000-7000 steps per day can significantly reduce the risk of many health outcomes, but that does not mean you cannot get benefits if you don't meet this target. 'The study also found that health risks were reduced with each 1000 extra steps per day, up to a maximum of 12,000 steps per day. So just adding more steps from your starting point can have important benefits for health.' Dr Andrew Scott, senior Lecturer in clinical exercise physiology at the University of Portsmouth, added: 'In most cases the 10,000 steps per day will still be better than 7,000 steps, just by decreasing margins of health benefit return. 'More important than the exact number of steps, it demonstrates that overall, more is always better and people should not focus too much on the numbers, particularly on days where activity is limited. 'The steps per day is useful when people's exercise is weight-bearing, however cycling, swimming and rowing are not well-represented by the steps per day model.'
Powys County Times
3 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Disabled could be helped back into work with new right similar to maternity law
People with disabilities could be helped back into work with similar protections as those for women returning from maternity leave, a new report has suggested. A new right to reintegration for workers on sick leave could see firms prevented from dismissing someone unless it is shown the employer has made sufficient efforts at reintegrating the person, the Resolution Foundation think tank said. They said such a right would 'would clarify and strengthen existing legal protections' under the the Equality Act and 'provide a much stronger message to workers about what they are entitled to'. The report warned that the Government risks failing to meet its aim to raise the employment rate to 80% without a 'serious strategy to shift employer behaviour' and argues employers must be incentivised to reintegrate existing workers back into jobs. The report comes in the same week as the Universal Credit Bill cleared the House of Lords, aimed at rebalancing the benefit 'to remove work disincentives', according to a Government minister, while giving existing claimants 'the security and certainty they need'. Separately during the debate, Paralympic champion Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, who sits in the Lords, said disabled people have been portrayed as 'benefit scroungers and a drain on society' in the conversation on welfare reform. In its report, the Resolution Foundation said around 12% of disabled staff leave work each year – consistently 1.5-times the rate of non-disabled workers. It added that twice as many people move from work into inactivity due to ill health – around 304,000 each year – than those moving the other way (around 151,000). But the think tank said despite there being 'strong' legal obligations in place already on employers, they are 'simply not doing enough to retain existing workers', with fewer than half of disabled workers who request a reasonable adjustment – which can include a change to working arrangements or provision of equipment, services or support – having this granted in full. With 15% of disabled people reporting workplace discrimination relating to their disability in 2022, the report said this remains a 'pressing issue'. The think tank said: 'Boosting disability employment is not straightforward: it will involve improvements to the health system, benefits system and world of work. But action to incentivise and support employers is a vital piece of the puzzle.' Louise Murphy, senior economist at the Resolution Foundation, said: 'The Government should do more to incentivise firms to employ disabled people – especially those who have been out of work for long periods – but employers need to do more in return. 'A new right to reintegration could help disabled workers back into work in the same way that maternity rights transformed women's employment prospects a generation ago.' The foundation said the new right could be enforced through employment tribunals, but urged the Government to also consider 'more proactive enforcement mechanisms, whether via the Equalities and Human Rights Commission or connected to a new system of caseworkers that are expected to be covered in the forthcoming Mayfield Review'. Former John Lewis boss, Sir Charlie Mayfield, is undertaking a review to investigate how Government and businesses can work together to support ill and disabled people into work, with a report expected in autumn.
