If medical staff refuse them, does anyone feel that that there might be something about about Swine Flu vaccinations they are not telling the public?

This little tidbit I particularly like.

Dame Christine Beasley, the chief nursing officer for England, responded by stressing that the vaccine is “as safe as a vaccine can be” and adding: “Nothing in life is risk-free.

Well I am still having mine. I have heard that they are going to refuse visas to people who don’t have a vaccination certificate and I am going to be a bridesmaid in New York just before Christmas. That article does worry me though.

Lawrence Lessig has a great bit in his Change Congress speech, talking about how unfortunate it is that the perception that money influences science, regardless of whether it is true or not, greatly damages legitimate science—and that the rise of the idea of “junk science” contributes to harmful ideas—such that immunizations cause more harm than good for society.

Linking the fact that “doctors believe ourselves to be above such trivial things as infections” (the reason for the low adoption rate, as stated by that article) to some conspiracy behind Swine Flu vaccines is a stretch, to say the least.

Also from that article: “We all know that uptake of the seasonal flu vaccine among NHS staff is traditionally low. It is an NHS board responsibility that we do not find ourselves in this position with the swine flu vaccine.”

That quote taken in context with what @andrew mentioned as well as the apparent blase attitude toward the flu in general as evidenced by another passage from the same article “Hospital chief executives say privately that Donaldson’s repeated reminders of the mild nature of swine flu’s effects in those who contract it, and recent claim that the UK is “tantalisingly close” to beating the virus, may be leading staff to believe that vaccination is not important.” seem to point to the fact that they aren’t “refusing” the vaccine on principle, but rather points to low participation in prevention across the board.

However creating a sense that there is some nefarious secret behind the intended wide-spread use of a vaccine is pretty irresponsible.

@andrew …to some conspiracy behind Swine Flu vaccines is a stretch

Doctors haven’t been known to make a similar “united stand” against any other vaccine. Most Doctors in my experience (I have two in immediate family plus several friends) are quite quick to inoculate annually against conventional flu – they are constantly dealing with people who have it – so why not for a more dangerous version of flu?

I don’t know what the reason is, and I DO NOT suggest or support that vaccinations are necessarily a bad thing, but this one has been rushed and not tested over any reasonable time according to many sources. It might be absolutely safe and have no side effects whatsoever – or it might turn out to be a repeat of the Anthrax vaccine fiasco.
I am still sticking to the original warning – those in high risk (both of contact and of effect) seek the vaccine, those who are healthy and low risk – hold off.

Again, reading a “united stand” from that article is a stretch.

@andrew Again, reading a “united stand” from that article is a stretch.

I know, I am being overly dramatic – pick any other descriptor for such a large number and explain why medical staff, Doctors and nurses – all of whom normally have annual flu shots, are refusing this? The “we are above infection” supposition doesn’t carry water – they would apply it more easily to conventional flu – but they don’t.

Their actions and responses definitely raise questions. They are even ignoring the “set an example” request that the Government is encouraging them to consider.

I’m sorry guys. This totally doesn’t answer the question but when I saw it I just had to add this.

Wasn’t there something in the news recently about the H1N1 vaccination causing heart attack or brain damage or something serious like that? I saw it on my Google News page, but I must have been busy because I didn’t click it.

Being in the medical profession does not insure that you are an intelligent, informed individual. With apologies to those in the medical profession who are intelligent, I’ve met many a nurse and doctor who are idiots in some fashion or another (I’ll be happy to supply horror stories of what medical professionals have done to their own pets). The individuals that I would focus on would be immunologists, infectious disease specialists – those who know about the subject.

And with that in mind, there is an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times today about addressing myths and fears of the HINI vaccine by an immunologist. The article is “Nothing to Fear but the Flu Itself” by Paul A. Offit, chief of infectious diseases division of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. I would post a link but I think it violates their copyright but you can find it online at www.nytimes.com . He talks about the fact that the vaccine is tested in the same way that the yearly ones are and is safe and does not contain a dangerous adjuvant.

I will probably not get vaccinated as I am not in a high risk category (and would not even be offered it), but if I needed to, I would get it.

@DarkScribe all of whom normally have annual flu shots – @Dr_C quoted the following from the article:

uptake of the seasonal flu vaccine among NHS staff is traditionally low.

Anyway, I think it might have to do with the medical staff not being one of the high risk group themselves. The reason they would have to get it is to protect the patients in the high risk groups they are treating. The reason they might not choose to get it is because it is not obligatory, from which they might draw the conclusion that it’s not really beneficial (which is easier to think if they don’t feel like freeing time to get the vaccine, or just don’t like the needle). Remember, just because they perform a medical profession doesn’t mean they’ve read up on the details of this flu.

The link @janbb mentioned/

@DarkScribe Dame Christine Beasley, the chief nursing officer for England, responded by stressing that the vaccine is “as safe as a vaccine can be” and adding: “Nothing in life is risk-free. What’s wrong with that? She’s completely correct – you can never guarantee that nothing bad will happen.

@syz What’s wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it, it is an honest appraisal – which is what makes it unusual. Much more refreshing than the attempts over many years to assure everyone that vaccinations were effectively risk free.

@Vincentt Thanks for posting the link.

@DarkScribe The message I’ve heard (for years, not specifically about H1N1) isn’t so much that vaccines are (nearly) risk-free, but rather that they’re vastly less risky than the diseases they’re inoculating you against…

@derekfnord but rather that they’re vastly less risky than the diseases they’re inoculating you against…

Agreed. If I have the option of avoiding contracting the disease I will, though if I knew that it was unavoidable I might consider other options. I am very leery of side effects. Most of my existing problems are not the cancer that I contracted, but a result of side effects from “safe – tried and tested” medical treatment. (Type2 diabetes as a result of treatment with Prednisone.)

Even if I catch it, I have always had good resistance to illness/virus and fast recovery. I would probably opt for an antiviral and trust that I would continue to recover quickly. Until contracting cancer, I have never been ill. My only hospitalisations have been for trauma.

I have many friends who are nurses, and I asked them what happens during flu season…since I don’t get the seasonal flu shot, and was wondering if it’s “enforced.” Most all my friends said that they never force it, but do highly recommend it. One of my nurse friends said that you can either get it, or they take you off the schedule…they don’t fire you, but you lose hours..so basically making them get it. But, she said she has never seen that enforced.

Not everyone wants to get immunizations. I don’t think it has anything to do with intelligence. I personally know I’m not up to date on my vaccines…when I entered college, it was not a requirement because I did not live in the dorms or anything. Most people I know were updated at 18, and quite possibly are not immune anymore to certain things. No one seems to be on those peoples case.
I think though, that this flu seems to be very….catchy. Whatever the heck is going around my area (schools are being shut down because of confirmed cases of swine flu) then if I worked in a setting where it was inevitable to get the virus, and having young children at home…it’d be selfish of me NOT to get the vaccine.

@DarkScribe explain why medical staff, Doctors and nurses – all of whom normally have annual flu shots, are refusing this?

to quote your own source (for a second time):
“We all know that uptake of the seasonal flu vaccine among NHS staff is traditionally low. It is an NHS board responsibility that we do not find ourselves in this position with the swine flu vaccine.”

Context is a beautiful thing.

@Dr_C :(for a second time):_

It has not been low enough to be noteworthy in the past – why is it so much lower now? Doctors dealing with patients who have flu and who refused Flu shots would have made headlines – if it was commonplace. It wasn’t. Eighty to ninety percent is way beyond any previous rates of non-compliance.

Context is a beautiful thing.

Responses full of weasel words don’t really answer why “professionals” are ignoring professional advice. In the case of nurses, in many case to their career detriment.

@DarkScribe why is it so much lower now?

It only seems low. If you take into account the ratio of infection/population of H1N1 and compare that to seasonal flu you see a diminished incidence and therefore less of an emergent need for the vaccine. However, it being “so much lower” is inaccurate since there is no previous data concerning a vaccine that until this year didn’t existe, hence there is no historical data to compare uptake percentage of said vaccine. So it’s not “lower” or “higher” than in previous years… the vaccine has never been administered before.

However if you want to get into historical stats, the HPA (Brittain’s Health Protection Agency) has reported uptake stats on the higher risk groups (adults over 65 years of age) showing an increase and having over 95% compliance, whereas the rest of the population (6 months to under 65 years of age) show under 50%. (Source here).

Now take into account that this is under 50% of THE ENTIRE POPULATION and not one small specific and non-representative sample of the population (the nurses you mention). So there is no real statistical proof that there is a lower or higher uptake of the vaccine. There has been an upwards trend over the past 2 years… still under 2%.

As far as 80–90% being way beyond the previous rates of non-compliance… there has never been a swine flu vaccine so there is no record of any non-compliance rate to compare to.

The idea of a new vaccine seems like a scary thing to most and could be a contributing factor to the low projected uptake.. but this has been true of al vaccines and is not likely to become trend.

@Dr_C As far as 80–90% being way beyond the previous rates of non-compliance… there has never been a swine flu vaccine so there is no record of any non-compliance rate to compare to.

I am not comparing “Swine Flu” I am looking at the “excuse” that they believe they are not at risk and so don’t need vaccination. If that was so then why didn’t such a large majority refuse conventional Flu shots based on the same reasoning?

How many working MDs do you know will spend a Flu season dealing with Flu patients, but not have Flu shots themselves? I don’t know of any who don’t, and I have not heard of a trend of that nature.

@DarkScribe why didn’t such a large majority refuse conventional Flu shots based on the same reasoning?
Because the incidence of seasonal flu in the UK is 41 in 100,000 patients where as the swine flu has only affected 18,000 patients. The proportionate difference in itself is staggering. The reasoning behind taking the vaccine would be to keep this numebr low and avoid reaching the incidence levels of seasonal flu which According to HPA) can be linked to over 20,000 deaths on a bad year whereas swine flu has only been linked to 84 as of week 40 of this year. Big difference.

@Dr_C Because the incidence of seasonal flu in the UK is 41 in 100,000 patients where as the swine flu has only affected 18,000 patients.

Isn’t the entire point of this based on the expectation that this could become a Pandemic, in which case those numbers mean very little. If you extrapolate from the current relatively small 18000 in comparison to the year before, then the figures are nowhere near as reassuring. A couple of years back there were none.

BTW, isn’t 41 in 100,000 remarkably low? I have read recently of much higher figures. Media stats though, I have not attempted to check or verify them.

41 in 100,000 seems low until you take into account that the number only tallies reported cases (many still go unreported) and the fact that the uk has an estimated population (as of 2008) of 60,943,912. So while it may seem like a small proportion of the populatio it’s still a huge number.

@Dr_C _41 in 100,000 seems low until you take into account that the number only tallies reported cases _

Reported or requiring Hospital involvement? The second I could understand.

The UK Department of Health says (30 April 2009) this:

Up to 10 to 15% of the population may develop influenza in any one year, varying from year to year. The number of people who consult their GP with flu-like illness during influenza epidemics also varies considerably from year to year

On the lower figure that is 10,000 in 100,000. A huge magnitude of difference to 41 in 100,000

Dept of Health

well thank you for proving my point.

@Dr_C well thank you for proving my point.

I haven’t proved your point.The only point that I have proved is that figures quoted on web forums can’t be relied on.

The Department of Health is working with reported cases. Those figures are similar to the Bureau of Statistics records here – which is why I queried the 41 in 100,000 – it seemed extraordinarily low – and it was.

According to expert opinion (W.H.O. etc.), this is potentially the early stages of a pandemic. Yet you claim that trained and experienced professional are deciding to “wing it” as they don’t consider themselves to be at as much risk as they would be from annual Flu – which they DO inoculate against.

No one knows what will happen during the next couple of Flu seasons, it could skyrocket, or it could fizzle out, yet these medical professionals are deciding not to accept the offer of vaccination. Risking their own lives and those of their patients. That does not sound like experienced professionals to me. Unless they have a reason other than complacency. Unless the risk of vaccination is higher than the risk of Swine Flu. No one knocks back a risk free potential benefit.

You might be right – but then again, you might not. I don’t intend to take unnecessary risks in order to find out. I’ll wait.

@dr c

Did I misread or did you say that there has never been a wine flu vaccine?
I beg todiffer. How about the swine flu of 1976? There was a vaccine and people got more sick from the vaccine than the flu itself.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol12no01/05-1007.htm

@chris6137 you´re right. I should have specified that there has never been a vaccine againts this specific strain of indfluenza and therefore it´s uptake cannot be compared to previous years.

Ok, this thread seems to be mostly about media coverage so I thought I should post this: ths Google Flu Trends. Interesting and entertaining at the same time.

@Dr c
How is this strain different from 1976? How can we be sure that this vaccine won’t cause guillian barre syndrome, which the last one did? How come I have not heard this brought up in debate in the media?

@chris6137
Quick rundown on the difference (from CDC).
The strain you mentioned from 1976 was not swine flu but believed to be similar to the 1918 pandemic of Spanish influenza (also known as “Swine Flu”). That strain is known as A/New Jersey/76 (Hsw1N1). Now to be clear this can be abbreviated as H1N1 as many other strains of influenza virus are.

However from a more recent report from CDC: (source above)
“Preliminary genetic characterization of the influenza viruses has identified them as swine influenza A (H1N1) viruses. The viruses are similar to each other, and the majority of their genes, including the hemagglutinin (HA) gene, are similar to those of swine influenza viruses that have circulated among U.S. pigs since approximately 1999; however, two genes coding for the neuraminidase (NA) and matrix (M) proteins are similar to corresponding genes of swine influenza viruses of the Eurasian lineage (1). This particular genetic combination of swine influenza virus segments has not been recognized previously among swine or human isolates in the United States, or elsewhere based on analyses of influenza genomic sequences available on GenBank.* Viruses with this combination of genes are not known to be circulating among swine in the United States.”

So once again… new strain, new vaccine.

As far as the health effects of the vaccine the only information available is specilative since it has not been in use long enough to have any kind of data on short or long term effects. however the CDC in it’s Q & A section for influenza vaccination stated that this vaccine “This vaccine will be made using the same processes and facilities that are used to make the currently licensed seasonal influenza vaccines.” Which seem to be working fine so far.

To everyone else. Good luck with this thread. I’m out.

@Dr c
Thanks for the info. I appreciate it