Will you get vaccinated?

[0iD]

Yeah, I really can't see the point at the mo, it's effectiveness is still under scrutiny tbh.

[pollaxe]

I'm an asthmatic and the last time I got 'flu it turned into pneumonia. I'll probably be having the vaccine as well as the regular 'flu jab this time. Not so much for me but more for the people I have clucking around me to keep them quiet.

[Tonka777]

Apologies if this has been posted previously. You may find this link interesting to read! - David Icke

Don't think I'll be getting the vaccine either!

[pollaxe]

Well I'll take my chances with the Lizard People, thanks...

[menthel]

Just a quick point. You don't get flu from flu jabs. Its just not possible- in fact its an urban myth that some people use to get time off work after the jab. There are other risks from a vaccination though, reactions to the inactivated virus, reactions to the substrate, funny and very rare effects on the nerves that seem to be something to do with the virus but not in the same way as they cause the flu (this also happens with the flu as well as the vaccine- something called guillane-barre syndrome- it is, however very bloody rare!) and just plain old reactions to the jab. I would have it if I was still working in the NHS- its irresponsible of health care workers to be off of work with what is essentially a preventable illness.

I would also take the survey of nurses with a big pinch of salt. Because of their training now they don't have a good a scientific background as you would want- so their understanding of the workings of a vaccine may not be far above that of a relatively intelligent layperson. Now if a 1/3 of doctors had said the same thing I would be worried!

[Saracen]

Just a quick point. You don't get flu from flu jabs. Its just not possible- in fact its an urban myth that some people use to get time off work after the jab. There are other risks from a vaccination though, reactions to the inactivated virus, reactions to the substrate, funny and very rare effects on the nerves that seem to be something to do with the virus but not in the same way as they cause the flu (this also happens with the flu as well as the vaccine- something called guillane-barre syndrome- it is, however very bloody rare!) and just plain old reactions to the jab. I would have it if I was still working in the NHS- its irresponsible of health care workers to be off of work with what is essentially a preventable illness.

I would also take the survey of nurses with a big pinch of salt. Because of their training now they don't have a good a scientific background as you would want- so their understanding of the workings of a vaccine may not be far above that of a relatively intelligent layperson. Now if a 1/3 of doctors had said the same thing I would be worried!

It is the case that you don't get flu from inactivated vaccines, though you may get a mild dose of flu-like symptoms as the immune system reacts to the appearance of a virus, which is of course exactly what it's supposed to do. But it is also the case that not all flu vaccines are inactivated. The other type (LAIV) uses a weakened (attenuated) form of live virus. The idea is precisely that it does give you a mild form of the flu, and your immune system develops antibodies by dealing with the attenuated version that will then protect you should you be exposed to the full, wild virus.

According to the US Government's CDC (Center for Disease Control) both forms of vaccine are developed, with the live version being a nasal spray, rather than a "jab". I carefully referred to "vaccine" rather than "jab" for exactly that reason. Oh, and there is also evidence that the immunological effects of swine flu vaccines are less than those for seasonal flu, and that to develop the required antibody levels requires about 6 times the dosage. There are also proposals to use the inactivated jab as stage one, and then to "challenge" the efficacy of it a few weeks later with the live but attenuated version. Other suggestions are that inoculation may require two jabs. The cynic in me wonders if stage two is required to reinforce stage one, or is the "challenge" phase.

As for GBS, it's something of an unknown factor, isn't it?

It's certainly been associated with the US swine flu outbreak in '76, but as far as I know, never conclusively proven to be the fault of the vaccine as opposed to the flu. It is, however, a cause for concern, and the Health protection Agency have warned doctors, especially specialists, to be on the looked for increased cases of GBS.

As far as I can make out, we will perhaps see cases of GBS from the pandemic, and perhaps from the vaccine. But, given that we don't know, it concerns me a bit that the authorities have issued a warning to be alert, as it suggests they are considering the possibility. On the other hand, I'd be concerned if they hadn't issued an alert as it'd suggest they were either complacent or ignorant.

But what is known is that the US stopped a mass vaccination program in the 70's over concerns about GBS, and that the current vaccine is very different from that one, and that it's been rushed to readiness with what many consider to indecent haste and insufficient testing and trials.


All of this leads me to the overall conclusion that anyone taking the vaccine is taking a chance ..... as is anyone that doesn't.

That's the point - it's a risk if you do and a risk if you don't. We each have to either educate ourselves, balance the risks, make a decision and live (or die( with the consequences), or we have to put blind faith in government and take it if they tell us. I for one am not putting blind faith in government.

So ..... right now, all the signs are that the vast majority of people that get swine flu have a typical flu experience, and while that can be nasty for a few days, it's usually no more than that. But some are more serious and a few die. Well, some (quite a lot actually) die from seasonal flu every year anyway, and most of us don't wet our knickers worrying about it, and don't get flu jabs (or sprays) either.

So given that, at the moment, the real risks from so-called swine flu are what they appear to be, I'd rather risk flu (again) than risk being a guinea pig for an unproven vaccine.

Hence my stance. Unless things change, and change a lot, I'll take my chances with flu rather than with the vaccine. I don't fancy being an unpaid test subject in big-Pharma's large-scale field tests.

[shaithis]

I have very little contact with the young or elderly......and I have a very strong immune system ...in fact the doctor always refered to me as a carrier when I was a child, never had measles, chicken pox etc.....so I will not have the vaccine, especially if it's an injection as I HATE needles!

Plus, theres the outside chance of a week off of work

[chicken]

If you get the vaccination you can't get a free holiday to South Korea!

http://airamerica.com/blog/2009/jun/...ting-swine-flu

[sammyc]

I have very little contact with the young or elderly......

Likewise, out of choice, & goes double for sick people - I won't be having the vaccine, even if things worsen I will just up my antisocial-git-ness to a high(er) level than normal.

I have never had flu incidentally, & never have the vaccine, but would be wary of this one for all the above-mentioned reasons.

[menthel]

Saracen, I can't quote the bits I want to as it's just too complicated on the iPhone!

As for GBS, it always increases in flu times. It's just a fact of life. However, even then it's rare and and when picked up people generally do survive (although with a lot of support). The couple of cases I have seen have been scary but both survived without any sequalae.

Vaccine production and development is much more nuanced than your post protrays. The use if inactivated and attenuated vaccines is blurred now with the levels of engineering that goes on to the viris and the hosts used. However it is important to recognise that vaccine production for these types of virus that mutate so quickly (and by that I mean yearly) the testing regime is never as long or as extensive as that for normal pharmaceuticals (the drug I am working on at present has been in active development for around 15 years and is only just nearing approval) but very strict guidelines are set down by governments and intenational bodies on how to develop them. Pharmacy companies are big but they just cannot be the monsters that they have been in the past. It's just not possible- believe me I am on the other end of what we sometimes feel is FDA lunacy!

Lessons have been learned from the mutlitude of mistakes made in the past- from thalidomide, to the vaccine problems of the 70's and more recently the COX-2 inhibitors. Things are safer than they were. However things can still go wrong, that I admit, and I don't know what will happen with this!

Also worth remembering is that the decisions over vaccinating will have been made by government with the input of the medical community. They will have performed extensive risk/benefit assessments and come to their decision from there.

Again, I can't predict the future but then again medicine has as much art and intuition as science as we just don't have the full picture yet.

[usernameisvalid]

Well I didn't get a vaccination for bird flu, and I survived that!!

[Mblaster]

i will only get the vaccination for me and my son if we catch it.

Vaccinations don't work like that, it's a preventitive measure, not a treatment.

Personally I won't be getting the vaccine, not because of any health risks, just becuase I don't think it poses a significant risk to me.

[Lucio]

......and I have a very strong immune system ...

You realise that could potentially put you at greater risk, should you become sick? Part of the problem with flu is a lot of the symptoms are a result of the immuno-response.

Oh and it's actually young people between 14 and 25 that you should be avoiding, not young children or the elderly, a flu outbreak like this tends to vector through that age range rather than the normal "at risk" groups.



As for the vaccination, I'm unlikely to bother with it, purely because I'm not a fan of needles and the risk seems fairly low at present. If the flu resurfaces this winter in a nastier varient, then I'll be straight down to the testi... ummm I mean GP's surgery

[TAKTAK]

Yes, I will get the vaccination, BUT, only because I am in close contact with someone who is immune-suppressed...

[Saracen]

Saracen, I can't quote the bits I want to as it's just too complicated on the iPhone!

......

Lessons have been learned from the mutlitude of mistakes made in the past- from thalidomide, to the vaccine problems of the 70's and more recently the COX-2 inhibitors. Things are safer than they were. However things can still go wrong, that I admit, and I don't know what will happen with this!

Also worth remembering is that the decisions over vaccinating will have been made by government with the input of the medical community. They will have performed extensive risk/benefit assessments and come to their decision from there.

Again, I can't predict the future but then again medicine has as much art and intuition as science as we just don't have the full picture yet.

Your last bit sums up my reservations.

I'm sure lessons have been learned, and while there have bee issues with vaccinations in the past, I did stress that as vaccines have moved on since those days, I don't necessarily expect the same issues to arise now so how instructive those past problems might be is limited.

But ...... do I trust big Pharma to be acting in my best interest? Sorry, but .... hell, no.

And nor do I trust government to be doing so.

Government might be acting for what they consider to be good reason, but they will be looking at the overall picture, and will have strategic considerations in mind, whether they admit it or not. And you said it yourself ..... conventional drug approvals processes are extraordinarily long-winded ... arguably, absurdly so. And, clearly, vaccine development can't follow a 15-year testing cycle, or by the time we have it, tested and available, any damage that strain of flu will do that might have been prevented will be long on the past. It is therefore inherent in the nature of the beast that the scope for large-scale testing will be limited. I don't dispute the pragmatism of that, but it does mean that, regardless of reason, the usual level of testing hasn't been done. Of course, as a layman, I would also expect that the level of unknown issues and potential side-effects may well be a lot lower than for a completely new drug too, so an accelerated testing regime might make practical sense.

Nonetheless, my point remains. I don't trust government to be acting in the interests of the individual. If they were, we wouldn't have troops in Afghanistan or Iraq, for a start. They're looking at "the big picture" and if the price we pay for that is that some individuals get killed, well, that seems it be a price they'll pay. Nor, as I said, do I trust pharmaceutical companies. Oh, I'm sure hat, by and large, they follow laws and regulations, but I just don't believe that their motivation is philanthropy. It's much narrower than that.

Based on what we've seen so far, my decision is that I have some understanding of the risk I take with the flu itself, but I have to take an awful lot on faith about the vaccine and I don't trust either the pharmaceutical companies or the government enough to do that. I don't expect anyone else to be convinced by that attitude and I'm not trying convert anybody. but nor, in everything the government have said, do I see any reason to change my mind. From the poll results, at least so far, it seems I'm not alone, at least in my conclusions though maybe not in the reasoning. 7.14% say they will take it, 73.81% say they won't, and 19.05% haven't decided. Interesting.

[Behemoth]

My boss was trying to get us all to have the jab, as he knows I'm asthmatic he has asked me to have it. I have told him there is no way in hell I'm having a bloody flu jab. My reasons for not having it are I'd sooner just have a proper dose of the flu and be done with it.

Needless to say he doesn't like my attitude about and has told me to reconsider. I've pointed out is not a sackable offence, its my choice and theres nothing he can do about it. He said something along the lines of me not caring about the business and me being off with the flu if I got it would cause problems.

Last time I had the jab, some 7 years ago now I think, the nurse administering it made me bleed, she literally stabbed me, I've never been too keen on needles at the best of times, and that just made it worse.

Touch wood I've not had a cold for 4 years. Think I can escape the swine flu.