Oh really?  I didn't know that.  I agree with you, vaccination without titre testing proves nothing.

This is titre testing to confirm a vaccine has been effective.  Do you really think we should be doing that after every booster?

Well there's some of us who prefer to titre test rather than just boostering Isabel :D but yes, I would expect titre testing after every booster with something as serious as rabies, being potentially fatal to humans as well.

>Well there's some of us who prefer to titre test rather than just boostering Isabel

That's a different issue and one I continue to doubt :)

>I would expect titre testing after every booster with something as serious as rabies, being potentially fatal to humans as well.

You would think so but I suppose the fact that Defra is so strict about the initial responses they must have good reason to consider it unnecessary, after all the cost would not fall to them :)

That's a different issue and one I continue to doubt
Really?  I would never have guessed! :D

As I said before, something as serious as rabies I would want proof of vaccine reaction each time.  If Defra don't ask for it, that makes me wonder whether the initial rabies vaccination is really effective for life.  No, I know you won't agree! :P

>makes me wonder whether the initial rabies vaccination is really effective for life.

That's a big leap to take you to that assumption!  And a big leap from expecting them to confirm cover every time with a titre test :D

Wasn't an assumption, just musing out loud. :)

Thinking about it, I suppose there is any number of reasons for vaccines not to work, for example

Immunocompromised dog
Faulty vaccine
Vaccine stored or handled incorrectly
and I'm sure many more

which could explain why the first vaccine didn't 'take' but the second did.  Really vaccination itself without titre testing is no proof of anything is it?

(no I'm not clutching at straws here honest :D, it has just occurred to me that this could be an explanation)

I thought we were packing it in for the night :)
If you look at the Internet quote they do expect that the first vaccine has taken just not to the level demanded by DEFRA and presumably they base that on their testing of the efficacy, although goodness knows why DEFRA demand more, public confidence perhaps.

Yes I was Isabel but it was something that just occurred to me!

I'm still not convinced that with live vaccines, a second vaccine gives a stronger response.  I think it is more likely that the first one didn't work properly for some reason.  I read somewhere that there is a percentage of vaccinations that don't take at all for one reason or another and of course, without titre testing, the majority of those people won't be aware.

I'm sure titre testing could be used to check the response although venipuncture is neither pleasant for the dog or entirely safe in itself.   The herd effect is what has been traditionally been relied upon to protect those few without cover for whatever reason I hope that will always remain the case.

With the rabies vaccine, though, unless the dog is frequently going abroad and being exposed to the disease, there won't be a herd effect. That only applies to the 'dog' diseases that are found in the dog's usual environment.

Good point and I do agree with you that perhaps for your own peace of mind if not DEFRAs ;) you might want to confirm this one due to the risk to human life in addition to your dogs.

As I have no intention whatever of taking my dogs abroad it doesn't affect me directly, but there's still a slight risk that someone else's pet might bring the disease back though lapsed immunity. I daresay the powers that be have recognised the risk to be too slight to warrant intrusive titre-testing after every booster. :)

Stress is another one Annie.  My understanding is that if the vaccine fails to 'take' on one occasion, it does not mean it won't on another.  It was one of the arguments used to justify blindly vac regularly as we really don't know if a individual dog 'takes' or not without a titre test.  So, we give more to make sure.

Ideally, the most secure way is to titre before vac, if levels are low, then vac and titre after vac to test the immune response by comparing pre vac titre to post vac titre.  But a lot of people will not do that or want to do that, which I can understand. 

>But a lot of people will not do that or want to do that, which I can understand. 

Too right! Three, maybe more needles stuck in, each possibly introducing bacteria, rather than one? I doubt whether the testing labs would do repeat titre tests for free, so each one would be an additional cost, and only the very wealthy among us can ignore prices.

Perhaps that would represent a secure one but it seems way over the top not least for the reasons that JG gives.  I think a better way is just for everyone to vaccinate, maintain their boosters and just generally continue the system recommended by the veterinary bodies that has protected the vast majority of dogs in this country so well for some many decades :)

Won't start on that one Isabel - whole new can of worms :D but generally I think we should be open minded and accept that the old ways aren't necessarily the best when new options come along.  Personally I would like to see all vets at least explaining and offering titre tests as the vast majority of dog owners I come across have never heard of it and are quite keen when I explain.  If the vet puts titre testing forward as an option and people don't wish to have it done, then that is their choice but at least they know it is an option.

Do you mean titre testing to predict that cover will extend for, at least a year, say?  I wonder how vets could explain that one :).  I think we can only expect vets to offer the recommended practice.  I think they may have liability issues if they offered regimes that are not the recommended ones.
No, the old ways are not necessarily the best which is why scientists continually research but as long as the evidence shows a course of action to be the best I don't think it is wise to change it just because it happens to be an old one.

East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet! :D  In other words, each to their own way and I think it is pointless to discuss this further. :)

Didn't say we should change things for the sake of it though Isabel, I would never suggest that even though it often seems a bit endemic in this country. :rolleyes:

I wonder..... if it's about giving a double dose to a dog with an unknown vac history in case the first doesn't take. Let's assume that the dog has never had any vac.   And giving a double dose to a dog outside the period of cover because the licence on the vac has expired.

Can't help thinking this is more to do with a set procedure, covering ones back and politics more than anything else. 

I don't think we'll ever be able to discern the motivation of individual vets in respect of this.  As you say, some may feel it's worth giving a second dose 'just in case', some maybe aren't keeping up to date with changing regimes or feel 'the old ways worked so why change' and of course some may be financially motivated - you get people like that in all walks of society.

I just think it is important that people are aware of the protocols of the vaccine companies so that they realise when those protocols are not being followed for whatever reason.

Yep, very very true :-)

Right well I don't know about anyone else but I'm off to bed now!  Wanted to thank everyone for an interesting discussion.

Yes, same here :)  I think we have all learned something :)