[Closed] NHS workers - are you having the swine flu vaccine?

[i]Whilst I respect your Paramedic skills and knowledge, I'm pretty sure the rule of self preservation don't really apply here now does it?[/i]

Yes it does there's a risk involved, some may not be prepared to take that risk.

[i]But again, I'm willing to be proven wrong when you show me some evidence of high probability of morbidity or mortality caused by seasonal flu vaccinations[/i]

Side effects exist with pretty much every drug and vaccine it doesn't need to be high for people to choose not to have it.

[i]I'm sorry, but you've given me no evidence of an 'informed opinion', and that really riles me up, I've met too many NHS staff who believe they know best because people come to them and ask them for medical advice.[/i]

I'm sorry neither have you, like I say Googling for articles doesn't really count.

I'm sorry neither have you, like I say Googling for articles doesn't really count.

Drac, you still aren't getting it (unfortunately) I don't have to make an informed opinion as I've already had it and I don't have to put immunocompromised patients at risk as part of my job. The search engine I use to search for medical articles is irrelevant be it Google scholar, pubmed or any of the others out there, at least I've attempted to put forward some justification for my point of view - you haven't.

Maybe you'd prefer I went back down the medical library and scanned through microfiches, got the journals off the shelf photocopied them and posted the articles to you, would that be better than finding them via a search engine? I remember those days well, not sure I want to revisit them though!

I'll leave you with my last thought on the matter and let the experts highlight the debate better than I can (and yes I used a search engine to find this article shame on me!):

[url= http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/aug25_2/b3398?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=%22Should+healthcare+workers+have+the+swine+flu+vaccine%3F%22&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=date&resourcetype=HWCIT ]Should healthcare workers have the swine flu?[/url]

That's just it Hagi you don't work in the health care profession but seem to think we're not allowed the choice of taking a vaccine and we have a duty of care to take it. What if members of the public started dictating you should be made to do something as it's your job and that there should be no choice.

Read that article and again it's encouraging healthcare workers to vaccinate to keep the system alive and not so much to prevent spread of infection.

That's just it Hagi you don't work in the health care profession but seem to think we're not allowed the choice of taking a vaccine and we have a duty of care to take it.

Actually you are correct there I don't work in the health profession (any more). However, if you [b]actually[/b] care to read any of my posts you will see that I've said all along that I fully support the individuals choice, my opinion is that you have to have a genuine reason for not taking it given the potential impact to those whose lives you are supposed to be saving.

You did but others seemed to think we don't, I kind of see where your coming from but people still have the right to choose if they inject anything into their body. Some will do it because the risk of a reaction, others because they seen the small health risks there may be a few who choose not to because they've had it before and felt ill after, even most evidence suggests this is coincidence. Still I prefer people to have the choice, I've had people refuse all sort of treatment that can help getting worse, save their lives or just make them feel well. They have the right to refuse, yeah your going to say they aren't going to cause problems for others but we have the right to refuse healthcare workers or not.

How ironic. Just checked my work email and there's a clinic on my station in just over a week so now have to try to encourage as many as my staff as I can to have the jab. Wonder if I should print of Hagi's thoughts. 😀

Regarding the "it hasn't been tested enough" argument:

I'm interested if this is just a general feeling or based in fact?

Does anyone know how much testing it has actually had compared to other vaccines and drugs? And do people with this concern generally limit themselves to only taking 30-40 year old drugs where the long term effect is better known, or are they treating the swine flu vaccine with more suspicion than normal for some reason?

How ironic. Just checked my work email and there's a clinic on my station in just over a week so now have to try to encourage as many as my staff as I can to have the jab. Wonder if I should print of Hagi's thoughts.

Lol! I'd suggest that BMJ article as a slightly more useful starting point - theres also some interesting comments in response to it.

[i]Lol! I'd suggest that BMJ article as a slightly more useful starting point - theres also some interesting comments in response to it. [/i]

It's ok there is loads of stuff lying around at work and we all got a letter and leaflet the other day about it. Still I won't and can't force my staff to have it only encourage them.

GrahamS - It was tested on 8,000 people IIRC but as I've mentioned earlier it only varies slightly from the seasonal one anyway so essentially the base of it has been tested millions of times.

Drac, thanks. That fits with my understanding. The base medium is well known and thoroughly tested; there is a good understanding of attenuated flu viruses in vaccines in general; and there is base knowledge about the H1N1.

So, as I understand it, the "untested" bit is a very slight risk that attenuated H1N1 in that medium doesn't perform the same as all the previous attenuated strains that are used every year?

And the trial of 8,000 showed no indication of that?

[i]So, as I understand it, the "untested" bit is a very slight risk that attenuated H1N1 in that medium doesn't perform the same as all the previous attenuated strains that are used every year? And the trial of 8,000 showed no indication of that?[/i]

Suppose there is but can't say for sure as never looked into too much.

Picking up on Grahams’s point about been able to trust drugs in common use of the last 30 – 40 years, over the last few years I’ve seen a number of clients who have cognitive impairment of unusual presentation and have taken psycho-active drugs over a long period of time. The implication been that the medication is a significant factor – as yet these are fairly rare cased and little research carried out (and due to the way research funding goes is unlikely) – so you never know
Essential all drugs have both positive and negative effect most of these are know, but you never know what else pop out of the blue – as all individuals are just that and therefore can & do react differently to chemicals introduced into the body. Unless you are detained under the mental health act or have been assessed as lacking capacity under the capacity act you basically have free choice as whether or not to accept medication, neither do you need to justify that decision nor can coercion be used to make you have it

DOH, TJ - of course it is likely you get mild flu symptoms after a flu jab, that is the idea of a vaccine. it is not a magic pill.

They introduce an inactive virus into your body, the bodies immune system fights it, this immune response can often cause the usual noticable affects (mucus, temperature, head ache etc) like a cold. BUT Because the virus is inactive it doesnt replicate and spread and block up and damage important bits of your body, but importantly your bodies Immune System remembers it and attacks it imediately should it meet an active Virus of the same or very similar strain in the future.

Hagi, Drac, you both agree that NHS staff should have a right to refuse the jab, you both agree that the jab is the best thing to do too...

I think that NHS staff should be given the choice too, have the jab or some education until you have the jab, or find another job.

I have still to see any evidence of complications of the swine flu jab (other than the "usual" list that Pharmaceutical companies use to cover their backs)

Furthermore until i see stats where i am more likely to get serious complications from the vaccine, than swine flu, it surely still makes sense to have the vaccine? anyone care to argue why fears of swine flu vaccine unbased in fact or experience, are more justified that fears of a little known Pandemic flu strain with the proven ability to kill healthy adults? Anyone? Anyone????

oh and btw the 1976 Guillon Barre "incident" doesnt count, as the vaccination process has moved on since, and there hasnt been a reoccurence.

Anyone? Free deore rear mech in it for you?

complications of the swine flu jab??? watch this space we start immunising tomorrow.!!

[img] [/img]

Tim Drayton - I do know how vaccines work thank you.

I also understand risk assessment and freedom of choice - unlike you. The bottom line remains - its my choice. I am far more likely to catch illness from a patient than they are to catch it from me.

Find one example of a healthcare worker transmitting swine flu.

Forcing NHS professionals to have an immunisation that carries its own risks is simply not on.

what risks? please elaborate TJ?

I am far more likely to catch illness from a patient than they are to catch it from me.

? please explain ? no really I am honestly interested in hearing you explain this one....

Find one example of a healthcare worker transmitting swine flu.

how would this be acomplished when Swine Flu cases are not being clinically tested anymore?

Are you saying that it is not possible for a healthcare worker to transmit swine flu?

So you dont think that any of the thousands of people currently with swine flu are health care workers? And you assume that every health care workers first priority is the people they come into contact with, rather than their wages?

This is precisely why health care workers should have the vaccine.

Because they meet at risk groups, because their level of knowledge of this Pandemic varies, and because some of them (as you have so excellently displayed) think they are better informed than the CDC.

calm down tim this isnt a particularly virulent strain of flu.

Yes is he seen it on John Craven's Newsround.

All immunisations carry risk. You can say this risk is high or low but none are risk free. Simple fact. The risks vary in likelihood and sseverity

The risk of me in my [i]particular circumstance[/i]s being a vector for swime flu transmission are low. If I was working in the medical admissions unit of a busy district general hospital it would be rather different

Why should a very small risk of me being a vector for swine flu mean that my rights to self determination should be restricted?

Of course I am not saying healthcare workers can't transmit swine flu.

Its a simple argument about self determination. You seem satisfied to remove a basic right from me for not quantifiable benefit and its questionable there will be any.

Its clear the main thrust of vaccination for healthcare workers is to reduce sick leave. This is not a particularly dangerous disease.

Notice its the healthcare professional that are doubtfull about this and understand the issues.

[i]Notice its the healthcare professional that are doubtfull about this and understand the issues. [/i]

but are seemingly unwilling to actually discuss them !!

from Drac's earlier post "...Still I won't and can't force my staff to have it only encourage them...." it doesn't sound like he's much in doubt about the benefits of being vaccinated.
No-one is really denying any individuals right to refuse medication, but are interested in the reasons why they may refuse, other than a stubborn 'won't have it because you're telling me to'.....

[i]it doesn't sound like he's much in doubt about the benefits of being vaccinated.[/i]

I hope not I'm a manager too so have to sound convincing.

doctornickriviera - I am pretty calm, just got sucked into an emotive subject for me, I really should know better than arguing on an internet forum....

TJ - Regarding the sick leave thing, agreed, but I have specific reasons for wanting healthcare workers swine flu free. As i have already said my wife has no immune system and is particularly susceptible to pneumonia bugs. Pretty much the only people she meets are healthcare workers, so I think she has the right to not be given swine flu by them. I accept that this doesnt rule out the possibility that I will go to Asda, be coughed over and give it to her, but my point is that they (healthcare workers) could reduce the odds by doing the sensible thing.

And we never mentioned all nhs workers, obviously there is a scale of risk dependant on your exposure to the public, my assumption was we were talking about front line healthcare workers....

I'll be having mine - maybe tomorrow, dunno

Mostly to avoid giving it to my parents (& maybe kids, though if pandemic kicks off proper they'll be passing it round the schools like nobody's business)

couple of thoughts generally:

I'm a bit unsure of the assertion that vaccination won't stop transmission. Immunity (if achieved) should prevent rapid, large increases in viral load in an exposed individual and also coughing etc and I'd agree with those who suggested it "must" reduce transmission.

Also (though I think the argument was a bit of a red-herring anyway) I'm not aware of a (human) carrier state for flu - has this been reported? (I believe cariers generally tend to be non-immune but luckily for them also non-susceptible). It's the non-immune bit that would allow transmission isn't it (?), and vaccines would mostly sort that out

It's a condition of my employment (and pretty typical within NHS) that I must be immune to rubella (G measles) purely because of the risk I might pose to patients, specifically pregnant women. If I hadn't already been immune I'd have been obliged to have the vaccine or look elsewhere for work.

the several H1N1 vaccines aren't licensed in the typical way and don't all correspond to seasonal flu in terms of manufacture. They are however compliant with the WHO's spec for pandemic vaccines and were licensed largely on the basis of prior work using the same methods but for H5N1 a few years ago. They have, of course, had some human testing - including a recent trial for the 2 currently available ones on UK kids

I've no axe to grind, I [i]think[/i] I support others' right to decline but I'm disappointed that your (drac, TJ) reasons are either so nebulous that they can't be articulated or else pretty unconvincing to me based on a "for the greater good" starting premise.

Tim - my point is I don't meet your wife or people like her. If I worked with immuno suppressed people then I would have it.

I am neither in circumstance where I am more likely to catch it than the general population, nor are the people I look after at much greater risk of serious complications of swine flu than the general population. I don't go into the big general hospitals.

There are far more serious risks out there including other health care acquired infections.

There is really little point in me having it

Following this with interest... I am not trying to be a conspriacy starter but there are some issues that don't add up to me and these issues worry me and lead me to not jump on the bandwagon.

Why have they only planned to vaccinate at risk groups? Given as mentioned above that it "can kill a healthy person" seems weird, surely you would jab everyone? **( I know in the BMJ article linked above that it says everyone, i have been told otherwise)

The way the anti-virals have been dished out seems to generate questions, handing them out so willingly with a simple website/phone based test that is easy to fool, with the problem that officially only one antiviral per person should be issued. The WHO advised that Tamiflu (the antiviral) is not administered Tamiflu to children, yet it is currently being done so, and with such disregard, I have heard of all the people given tamiflu, the actual occurence of swine flu is below 20%, that is risking harm without reason.

You question the individuals here who have admited they wouldn't like to take the vaccine... but http://www.****/news/article-1208716/Half-GPs-refuse-swine-flu-vaccine-testing-fears.html shows nearly half of GP's are concerned and would decline, now either theres a massive lack of information OR they know something me and you don't! I personally have reason to think misinformation is an issue here.

Given the issues above i am not seeing the vaccine as a holy grail and so am not rushing to have it. I think it is an individuals decision.

hmmmm, just re-read the thread & think drac's just arguing against coercion & isn't saying he aint having it, hence no reasons cited - fair enough

Precisely I'm happy to have but only as I choose to and not because some says I have to.

**** going to be late for work. bye!

Why have they only planned to vaccinate at risk groups?

I believe that given the well publicised issues with getting enough of the vaccine made available in time, the priority is for at-risk groups and people in close contact with at-risk groups.

The way the anti-virals have been dished out seems to generate questions,

Indeed, it is experiences like this which probably make so many people question the ability of the govenrment to correctly handle a mass vaccination program.

shows nearly half of GP's are concerned and would decline, now either theres a massive lack of information

You've hit the nail on the head there, several studies have been published that prove higher uptake of vaccines in healthcare workers when they properly understand the risks vs the benefits.

Unfortunately the percieved view is that [b]everybody[/b] who works in the healthcare profession is capable of making an informed judgement on the safety and efficacy of vaccination. Better education is the key here, not allowing people to make judgements based on what they've read in the tabloids.

As I've said all along, nobody should be forced to take the vaccine, but all of those who choose not to should have a genuine reason (as TJ does) that they can explain to their colleagues and managers because the current body of evidence suggests that not taking it could cost lives.

dr_adams my understanding is that Vaccine stocks are currently limited, so they are starting with the most vulnerable first, and then will roll it out in greater numbers when stocks allow.

The widespread Tamiflu prescribing seems to have been a mixture of panic reaction, public placation, (and if you believe it) a means to reduce over stocking of shortly out of date antivirals.

It is widely thought to be less effective once a patient is symptomatic, and even then to only reduce the period of illness by 24 hours.

TJ - you are still yet to provide any reason or proof to not have the vaccine? the fact that you are not likely to meet my wife, aside from this in itself being at least some comfort to her, does not stop you passing it on to people around you and doesnt add to herd immunity does it?

and its a bit selfish really?

everyone should have it, otherwise we run the risk of just being left with intelligent people able to differentiate fact and sense from unbased fear and distrust? .......... oh wait a minute

moving aside from the question of whether (because i will as soon as I'm offered it, with a recent history of asthma rapidly becoming chest infections / pneumonia) - but does anyone know any details of when / how?

All i can see on the flu websites is that we will be contacted by our GP's and invited to be vaccinated, but with postal strikes and the like, anyone know how this will be done. And also any idea how long to roll out vaccination to the at risk groups (sure this will vary from practice to practice but surely there's a basic plan?)

And lastly - assuming I'm in an at risk group, are my family supposed to be vaccinated too, to reduce their chances of getting it and passing it on to me (although if I'm vaccinated and it works, what benefit does this bring?)

theotherjonv - Not a cop out but probably best to ring your Drs and speak to them they will have someone appointed for the doing the programme in your area. Other areas may have a different format of walk in clinics some may give individual appointments.

Tim with the highest repect you sound panicy and over the top, I understand your concerns but there is no need for everyone to be vaccinated. It is a flu virus a new strain but still a flu virus, flu kills 100s very year anyway, it's the fact that it's a new strain that means it has spread, in a year or so time when it has been around for awhile there will be no offer of a vaccince but the riks will still be there.

Dr_dams does have a point about the diagnoses of it, they originally confirmed it was Swine Flu blood test and cases were low bet there. Then it became so a person in a call centre could diagnose it and the cases rockted, it was published hugely in the media that the pandemic had started don't you think there was a reason for this?

Then it became so a person in a call centre could diagnose it and the cases rockted, it was published hugely in the media that the pandemic had started don't you think there was a reason for this?

Drac, given your arguements earlier, you are the last person I would have suspected to be making things up without any evidence!

[url= http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1176062 ]Transmissibility is therefore substantially higher than that of seasonal flu, and comparable with lower estimates of R0 obtained from previous influenza pandemics. [/url]

My wife is an Orthopeadic surgeon, and currently pregnant.

She got a very bad chst infection last week, which scared us both a bit, ok she didn't have a temperature, but she ended up taking it every few hours just to be sure.

Added to this, apparently if the poo hits the fan, medical doctors will continue looking after medical patients, and surgeons will be tasked with looking after the flu cases on surgical wards.

In terms of research, I know she said the research is poor/non existent, however pregnant women have been using the drug in Australia over their winter with no (known) side affects.

Yes she's worried, and me probably more than her, not about what the drug might do to her, but any long term side affects for our baby...

Yep we're in a very similar situation FunkyDunc.

But we're pretty persuaded that the safest action is to go for the vaccine. Our midwife told us she is seeing one pregnant lady a week with swine flu.

As has been said already the only really novel part of this drug is that it has attenuated H1N1 virus in it instead of the regular flu strains.

Seems to me that this means the only novel bit is basically the same bit you would get if you caught swine flu for real. No?

[i]Transmissibility is therefore substantially higher than that of seasonal flu, and comparable with lower estimates of R0 obtained from previous influenza pandemics. [/i]

Yeah it is spread quicker as I say it's a new strain so will spread quicker, same happens with any new virus. Funny how the huge estimates they were giving earlier in the year for deaths has dropped dramatically though. It's a real threat but the media is hugely responsilbe for causing panic about swine flu and panic over vaccines.

moving aside from the question of whether (because i will as soon as I'm offered it, with a recent history of asthma rapidly becoming chest infections / pneumonia) - but does anyone know any details of when / how?

I believe that vaccines are being given to GP's within the next 3 weeks. Healthcare staff are being done separately in different clinics but Gp's will receive stocks and then send for people in the normal way that they would with seasonal flu...

As has been said already the only really novel part of this drug is that it has attenuated H1N1 virus in it instead of the regular flu strains.

I am not so sure, the impression i got from the WHO website is that there are different cases as regards emergency approval of medication in emergency circumstances (which this has been classed as) and one of them is altered medication but this not the class that the vaccines have been treated as, they have been treated as new medication... This might be a lack of understanding on my behalf but obviously shows there is concern, and if you look at other sources they do speak about the contents of the medication and list certain compounds that cause concern. I am not a pharmacist so i can't truely form my own opinion on that but there is no official responce and so that does raise questions.

You've hit the nail on the head there, several studies have been published that prove higher uptake of vaccines in healthcare workers when they properly understand the risks vs the benefits.

My concern with the above is that these studies are conducted by parties with an interest in the success of the trials. Normal medication takes years to go through the system and yet these vaccines have been rushed through. The source of this "better education" would be of interest to me, i am willing to learn but i see lack of independant verification. [You state that the risks are very low compared to the benefit but the general feeling amongst people i speak to is that the true risk is unknown, Yes there are the risks as per any vaccination but there has been little testing time to see if there is anything long term, as far as i am aware the trials have been for only one month] ( [ through ] represents what i have as my understanding, there is no impartial evidence and normally that wouldn't bother me, i don't read clinical trials of asprin before i take it but i do feel that this is a knee jerk reaction and the lack of an instant confident responce from those in power makes me question more).

I am not looking for an arugement or trolling, just curious...

Unfortunately the percieved view is that everybody who works in the healthcare profession is capable of making an informed judgement on the safety and efficacy of vaccination.

Yeah it is spread quicker as I say it's a new strain so will spread quicker, same happens with any new virus.

I think what you are referring to is the epidemic curve.

Luckily although H1N1 can spread reasonably fast it fortunately doesn't result in a high death rate. Now if the H5N1 outbreak from a couple of years ago had the same or similar R0 value as this strain we wouldn't be having this argument.

It's a real threat but the media is hugely responsilbe for causing panic about swine flu and panic over vaccines.

Couldn't agree more, it has been overhyped (as usual) by the media, and its this sort of nonsense which causes issues when it comes to serious discussion of any medical issue.

dr_adams

My concern with the above is that these studies are conducted by parties with an interest in the success of the trials.

Really? There are plenty published in peer reviewed journals also quoting their sources of funding. Obviously there is no guarantee they are 100% unbiased, but then the same applies to any published work.

I am sorry but i found that quote a bit mean

I stand by it as [url= http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/pandemrix/Pandemrix-PU-17-en.pdf ]the information is there[/url] but I wouldn't expect a receptionist or a junior nurse to be able to fully understand and interpret it.

To be honest there are a number of GPs who I also wouldn't trust to be able to understand and interpret a lot of the information out there. This brings me back to my point that we need better education - I don't know what literature is being distributed internally or whether or not it is suitable, but if there isn't somebody with an in-depth understanding of immunology and vaccination campaigns to answer and reassure people, then its never going to work is it?

Hmmmm..........

While you are having this lovely informed debate about the pros and cons, people are actually dying of H1N1 infections.

Intensive care units are currently pretty full; with bed occupancy rates running at over 100%. Not all H1N1, but the additional load is beginning to cause problems.

I don't think people realise how quickly this could move from a few poorly people to a complete Hollywood style nightmare.

We are coping at the moment, and there are robust plans in place should the worst case scenario develop, but I'm in the 'front line', and I'm somewhat concerned....

a complete Hollywood style nightmare.

That sounds a little far-fetched, crikey.
It just isn't proving to be [i]that[/i] lethal.
so far it doesn't really seem to be any more lethal than 'standard' flu.

Granted if it mutated and suddenly became hyper-lethal then we'd be pretty much screwed. But that goes for any easily spread virus in the population.

It's less about the overall lethality, more about the impact that even a small number of extra cases that require Intensive Care will have.

Consider too that it seems to affect pregnant women severely; nurses are still largely women of child bearing age, and the impact there could be a problem.

Add in the usual rise in respiratory illness seen at this time of year, and suddenly you have a situation where you have a number of extra people requiring intensive care, no beds to put them in, and a threat to the work force required to look after them.

Your right the extra work load is going to be a problem but far from a Hollywood nightmare. HDUs tend to run on a few spare beds do they not so often fill up quickly and as you say this time of you they get buisier with silver heads suffering from seasonal flu. Interesting enough I have a friend who works in an respiratory ward in a hospital specilising in resperatory medcine, last time I seen him he had not seen a single patient with suspected swine flu. His regular patients being very likely the ones to catch it.

It's less about the overall lethality,

Agreed, but that's not what you implied when you said [i]"While you are having this lovely informed debate about the pros and cons, people are actually dying of H1N1 infections. "[/i]

People are dying of it.

..and no, actually, HDUs and ITUs don't run on a few spare beds; they are usually full, and therein lies the problem.

H1N1 cases that need critical care need to be accomodated, taking whatever spare capacity may be available.

For example, earlier this week in the North West region, there was one ITU bed available when I phoned.

I'm not scare-mongering, just saying that the line between coping and not coping is a thin one.

...and 'silver heads'? Three of our swine flu cases have been in their 20s...

hagi

I stand by it as the information is there but I wouldn't expect a receptionist or a junior nurse to be able to fully understand and interpret it.

I agree with you completely about the lack of education and information, however i am just unable to share your strong stance when i have yet to see such information that would allow people to make an informed decision.

[i]..and no, actually, HDUs and ITUs don't run on a few spare beds; they are usually full, and therein lies the problem.[/i]

I was wanting to say they're usually full but thought I may cause an argument, seems you would have just said yes.

Sorry, I maybe be a humble receptionist but i must be lower than even your expectations as i am missing something from the link you provided?

Sorry it wasn't meant to be the answers to everything, but rather a starting point, but it kind of illustrates my point anyway.

it merely is the authorisation for the medication and shows the conditions of its such and provision

To you maybe, but to me:
1. It tells me that they've gone for EMEA regulation rather than the less strict MHRA approval
2. Its basis is the H5N1 vaccine trialled in 2007, using the same building blocks just with a different viral protein composition - I can't find any evidence of that causing any serious complications
3. It tells me what the adjuvant is in case you are concerned about that (you do know what an adjuvant is don't you?) - in this case squalane (implicated in gulf war syndrome prompting a number of studies all of which conclusively proved no link to any known health issues)
4. They have scheduled a load more follow up tests to ensure that their product isn't harming people

Again, all of this is possibly not relevant as I doubt most people would take the time and effort to read it.

The fact is people who are experts in their field have certified this vaccine. I've yet to hear a credible reason for frontline workers to not take it (assuming they don't suffer allergies etc). Its their choice, but I'd hope they had a justifiable reason as it could cost lives.

Again, all of this is possibly not relevant as I doubt most people would take the time and effort to read it.

The fact is people who are experts in their field have certified this vaccine. I've yet to hear a credible reason for frontline workers to not take it (assuming they don't suffer allergies etc). Its their choice, but I'd hope they had a justifiable reason as it could cost lives.

To you maybe, but to me:
1. It tells me that they've gone for EMEA regulation rather than the less strict MHRA approval

2. Its basis is the H5N1 vaccine trialled in 2007, using the same building blocks just with a different viral protein composition - I can't find any evidence of that causing any serious complications

3. It tells me what the adjuvant is in case you are concerned about that (you do know what an adjuvant is don't you?) - in this case squalane (implicated in gulf war syndrome prompting a number of studies all of which conclusively proved no link to any known health issues)

4. They have scheduled a load more follow up tests to ensure that their product isn't harming people

My concern is that there isn't any evidence that one month is a justified test length. Given if it wasn't a pandemic and a new medication was to be introduced the pathway is years upon years, how come a pandemic can slash this time? are corners being cut?

Its a valid question:
1. The manufacturing process of the vaccine is tried and tested
2. It is identical to the H5N1 vaccine except for viral load - while I can't comment on how many people have actually been vaccinated with it, it began clinical trials in April 2005
3. Pandemrix (the H5N1 version) was signed off by the EMEA in 2008 having undergone the standard approval process.

thank you. strange that they put this information so easy at hand....

timdrayton - Member

TJ - you are still yet to provide any reason or proof to not have the vaccine? the fact that you are not likely to meet my wife, aside from this in itself being at least some comfort to her, does not stop you passing it on to people around you and doesnt add to herd immunity does it?

and its a bit selfish really?

Don't you think its a bit paranoid and selfish that you seem to think you have the right to compulsorily medicate me?

its not for me to justify not having it. Its for you to find some justification for your paranoid and hysterical point of view.

I am no more at risk than the general public. Why should I take this medication for something I am unlikely to come into contact with? There is absolutely no advantage to the community at large to me taking it - many other folk would be better in the queue for inoculation.

Your failure to grasp the realities of the situation and your descent into childish name calling show how impoverished your argument is.

Been watching this thread for a while.

If mental health nurses were american ww2 bombers, I would have about 500 syringes stencilled down one side of me, and 500 packs of steri-strips down the other. And probably a little dog with a neckerchief as a mascot or something.

[b][i]Yet[/i][/b], still I found that the biggest factor in my decision to have it (and yes I will for the first time have a 'non-compulsory' vaccine from work) is that I am really rather scared of [s]having[/s] receiving injections.... 😳 😳 😥

Good point dr_Adams But Just look what the first rush jab of swine flue
done to more than some of the American people.

And to be honest we dont have a good track record at the moment
regarding vaccine and taking resposibility for the faliure.
Just look at the classic example of the Jab they gave to our own Army!
And not forgeting the kids vaccine.

This could be YOU!!!

But Just look what the first rush jab of swine flue
done to more than some of the American people.

?? Why what happened in the US?

Just look at the classic example of the Jab they gave to our own Army!

what jab?

And not forgeting the kids vaccine.

Wait, you mean you can be vaccinated against kids? Why did no one tell me? 😀

Seriously, what kids vaccine am I not forgetting?

This could be YOU!!!

Dunno if there's supposed to be a picture there or not, but if there is then it hasn't worked.

I'm confused! 😕

TandemJeremy

Your failure to grasp the realities of the situation and your descent into childish name calling show how impoverished your argument is.

TJ you do love an argument dont you?

Don't you think its a bit paranoid and selfish that you seem to think you have the right to compulsorily medicate me?

its not for me to justify not having it. Its for you to find some justification for your paranoid and hysterical point of view.

Paranoid? Hysterical? Please point out where my posting has become paranoid or hysterical, and I will apologise.

Show me where my posts have been factually incorrect or unjustified?

I am not saying we should all stock up with food and build fall out shelters.

I merely point out my particular situation, (well my wifes situation) which is that her prognosis should she get swine flu, would be dire.

This is not my own "paranoid" opinion, that is the opinion of her Immunologist, who is described as the leading immunologist in the UK.

wife + swine flu = bad things happen

so i believe she has the right to expect that the people treating her are following the best practise advice.

I have already said that (in my opinion!!) FRONTLINE NHS staff should be forced to have it, you arent frontline, so I am not advocating taking away your rights.

As someone (who is frontline) has already mentioned, there is precedent for this with enforced Rubella innocolation.

So which is more paranoid, following CDC and NHS advice based on fact and lots of very qualified people, or deciding to go against that advice on the basis of ................. er nothing so far, other than a general bad feeling......

I am no more at risk than the general public. Why should I take this medication for something I am unlikely to come into contact with? There is absolutely no advantage to the community at large to me taking it - many other folk would be better in the queue for inoculation.

I was saying that the general public should have the Vaccine too, not be forced to as they dont come into contact with at risk groups.

There is obviously no benefit to just you having it (unless a side effect is found to be a reduction in typing ability), but there are obvious benefits to everyone having it?

Reduced mortality being the headline benefit if i remember rightly?

Of course you cant force the general public to have it, but the benefits of mass vaccinations far outweigh the negatives.

I am basing the above statement, on the advice of the CDC, and of the NHS.

What are you basing your argument upon?

What is your argument, anyway? No one has said you must have it, only that you would have to be stupid or know something we dont, not to?

Your failure to grasp the realities of the situation and your descent into childish name calling show how impoverished your argument is.

Name calling, when? where?

Tim - you called me selfish as in the quote from you above. You also say I must be stupid not to want to have it.

There are no compulsory vaccinations in the NHS. All vaccines including this one carry risk. Why should people be forced to have medications with their risks?

What is your possible justification for forcing people to have it? Thats the case you have not made. Yes there is advice that front line NHS staff should have hit - that falls a long way short of your position that all front line staff must be forced to have it or lose their jobs.

Your wife is immunocompromised. However she is far more at risk from other infections than this rare and not serious variant on flu.

The scale and severity of the outbreak of swine flu in no way validates your reaction to it - thats why I call you hysterical and paranoid.

What you have failed to grasp is the right to self determination. To override this should and does require a much more serious risk than swine flu. Now if it where drug resistant TB or bubonic plague?

i didnt realise commenting that your stance on this was selfish, or that your suggested action was stupid constituted name calling? but hey ho

we appear to be on a never ending merry go round which is becoming slightly tedious, so i'll try to make this the last post.............

It is very hard to resist responding just once more though:

All vaccines including this one carry risk.

FFS as has been clearly demonstrated, there are no proven side effects specific to the H1n1 vaccine, I never said there want risk, only that the risk from Swine flu far outweighs that of the vaccine?

Swine flu deaths to date =?

Influenza (of any sort) Vaccine caused deaths =?

What is your possible justification for forcing people to have it? Thats the case you have not made. Yes there is advice that front line NHS staff should have hit - that falls a long way short of your position that all front line staff must be forced to have it or lose their jobs.

because the pros so far outweigh the cons, (i wont repeat them) that forcing people to have it is better than the effects of some misplaced groundless fear.

Frankly I cannot believe people are thinking of not having it, this is what frustrates me?

Your wife is immunocompromised. However she is far more at risk from other infections than this rare and not serious variant on flu.

please dont lecture me on my wifes condition, I assure you i am better informed.

To a point we can minimise risk from other infections in the home, as can health care professionals, the whole point of my argument is that in my opinion refusing the vaccine is adding unnecessary risk of airborne infection when she goes to the hospital.

It is potentially serious for her, as she has no immune response to Pneumonia bugs, she has minimal response to other types of infection.

Who are you to comment on the potential danger to her?

The scale and severity of the outbreak of swine flu in no way validates your reaction to it - thats why I call you hysterical and paranoid.

My reaction? I beg to differ, surely it is pure logic?

CDC and NHS suggest that vaccination will save lives and is safe, they single out an area of staff (frontline workers) with increased potential impact, and offer them a currently scarce and potentially life saving vaccination.

Without evidence these people refuse it, potentially endangering lives?

yes I would sack them, and employ people more well adjusted to care for others.

The scale and severity of the outbreak: its not dropping em in the streets, but i'll stick with the advice of the CDC and NHS thanks.

My reaction may sound panicky to you but Lauras consultant has voiced real concern over this issue, so whilst it is not a particular danger to you or indeed other healthy people, it is to her.

[b]The "forcing people to have it" issue was really secondary to the "why wouldnt they want it" question?[/b]

you have seized on that point like a little angry nhs terrier, drop it and satisfactorily explain why a sane person wouldnt want the vaccine, which i think 4 pages ago was the original question.

You simply do not grasp the point.

My reaction? I beg to differ, surely it is pure logic?

You are over reacting to this threat because of your circumstances. Swine flu is not a major serious epidemic

I did not lecture you on your wifes condition. It is a simple fact tho that there are more serious and more easily caught healthcare acquired infections and other infections out there. Is your wife particularly susceptible to flu viruses?

What yuo fail to understand is the limited usefulness of these immunisations and the small odds of infection. I simply see it as an expensive waste of time to inoculate people who are not high risk when there is no benefit from doing so.

You really need to calm down and have a real objective look at this. Many healthcare professionals have real doubts about the wisdom and effectiveness of this inoculation campaign.

[i]....they single out an area of staff (frontline workers)...[/i]

I think TJ's about as far from frontline as you can be and still claim to be a healthcare worker 😆

...expensive waste of time to inoculate people who are not high risk when there is no benefit from doing so.

Arguably, given that the low R[size=1]0[/size] number of H1N1 has already been mention, then a potential benefit would be a first step towards [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity ]Herd Immunity[/url]. Though we'd need to get a lot more vaccine out to the general public too.

because the pros so far outweigh the cons, (i wont repeat them) that forcing people to have it is better than the effects of some misplaced groundless fear.

You really think so? My right to self determination means so little to you? The evidence that inoculating healthcare workers will make a difference to infection rates is far from strong

Without evidence these people refuse it, potentially endangering lives?

yes I would sack them, and employ people more well adjusted to care for others.

How offensive is that. You - an amateur should have the right to decide that people should be given medication under threat of losing their jobs?

Nobody in the Dept of Health thinks that - they are not even pushing the vaccine that hard FFS.

why did i click refresh? why? why?

because I am caught in tandemjeremys evil web of argumentivity (is that a word?)

I am perfectly calm by the way 🙂 see i have a smily face!

oh well its better than watching paul o grady....

TJ please forget about the forced vaccination thing, its ok, calm down, I really think you are getting far too wound up about this particular point...

What yuo fail to understand is the limited usefulness of these immunisations and the small odds of infection. I simply see it as an expensive waste of time to inoculate people who are not high risk when there is no benefit from doing so.

Then for gods sake educate me? Please elaborate what you know that the CDC doesnt?

[b]Benefits as already mentioned so, very many times[/b]

herd immunity as mentioned above, (and by others including me on page 1 or 2)

protection from infection/ possible complication

minimising potential impact from absences from work on the NHS and other industry....

[b]Negatives[/b]

potential for mild sniffles

mild localised egg intolerance

anything else?

I am sorry - I simply don't know how to explain it better.

Vaccination of healthcare workers is being done with little evidence that it will do any good, the vaccines are not anywhere close to !00% effective, for me at least they are very unpleasant to have ( a couple of days of fever resulting in time off work), the benefits of vaccinating all healthcare staff is marginal an unproven at best, I am not at increased risk of being a vector for transmission or of side effects - the checkout staff in sainsburys are more likely vectors for example - want to compulsorily vaccinate them?

This is not evidence led medicine - its tabloid led.

TJ: out of interest, how do you feel about vaccines in general?

For instance, the measles vaccine isn't 100% effective either (few vaccines are) and it can have unpleasant side effects too (as can most vaccines). Have you had that?

Just trying to figure if you're generally against mass vaccination or just H1N1?

This is not evidence led medicine - its tabloid led.

Aren't the tabloids the ones hinting that the vaccine isn't safe?

Graham - not a huge fan of vaccinations in general - they have their place but I do feel we over vaccinate our population. Its a whole 'nother question tho. I am vaccinated for some stuff but not others. Some I have natural immunity so don't need vaccination. Some I am prepared to accept the risks. My decision based on evidence.

The media have made more of the swine flu epidemic than the risks really are and the government are reacting ( to some extent) to teh percieved risk rather than the actual ones

Some I am prepared to accept the risks

But you also understand that many vaccines require a certain take up rate within the population to be effective. So that by refusing some vaccines and "accepting the risks" you are potentially making that decision for all of us?

Doesn't that rather turn your "right to self determination" argument on its head? 🙂

[size=1](a hypothetical Devil's Advocate point to think about, rather than a deadly serious assertion BTW. I do agree that you have the right to choose what goes into your body)[/size]

A greater good for the greater number argument - makes for an interesting philosophical debate.

I am not sure that I am missing any vaccinations where this would be an issue - Measles and Mumps I have natural immunity having caught them as a kid, Rubbella I am vaccinated for. ( Interestingly only offered as children to females of my generation. TB vaccinated for.

Not enough people are being vaccinated with eh swine flu vaccine to get herd immunity From what I know

God TJ, can't believe your nonsense spouting has suckered me in again 😉

Vaccination of healthcare workers is being done with little evidence that it will do any good, the vaccines are not anywhere close to !00% effective

If you actually look, you'll see from the clinical trials that the seroprotection rate after 2 doses is pretty close to 100% - which is irrelevant because if enough people get the vaccine it doesn't need to be.

[url= http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00050577.htm ]I'm sure you know better than the CDC[/url] and people who have made their careers studying epidemiology so I'll not point out the fact that most of what you say sounds 'Tabloid led' rather than 'evidence led'.

During the last flu panic (H5N1) the DOH did the same thing and ordered massive stocks of vaccine to be produced - they didn't start a mass vaccination program that time though did they? So maybe they looked at the evidence being produced by the WHO and looked at what every other country in the world is doing as well?

Not enough people are being vaccinated with eh swine flu vaccine to get herd immunity From what I know

Its easy to make a vaccine (the principles are very basic and well understood), however, its not so easy to make enough of it! The recommended approach is start with at-risk groups, then those most in contact with at-risk groups, then get to the rest once you've got enough to go around.

But I'm sure you knew all this and you're not just trolling are you 😉

Graham S
when they had given the swine Flu jab a few years back in America
One person became disabled in around Six hours, some people had serious
side effects and some woman that was pregnant had deformed babys
This was on a Panorama program, early this year just after they had
came up with this vaccine

Regarding the jab they gave our Army is the one in the Gulf war
and the Americans gave to there Army but the Americans gave them
compensation where we have not in any way owned up to it.

Regarding the Jab for children I was refering to the MMR Jab.
Again complications and again will not take the blame

So will not become a Mass Guinea pig on this one.

[i]Again complications and again will not take the blame[/i]

If you mean Autism then your behind a bit as it was proven there was no link and the initial report had altered figures.

I'm now curious about Hagi he has only posted in here and has never revealed his profession or interest in this?

Tim - your concerns for your wife are justified but to suggest any front line staff refusing to be sacked is way over the top and chances are illegal.

when they had given the swine Flu jab a few years back in America
One person became disabled in around Six hours, some people had serious
side effects and some woman that was pregnant had deformed babys

What swine flu jab were they giving in the US "a few years back" given that the current pandemic was only identified in Mexico in April this year?

Are you talking about [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swine_influenza#1976_U.S._outbreak ]the 1976 outbreak, where 48,161,019 Americans were immunised and [u]25[/u] people were killed as a result of Guillain-Barré Syndrome[/url]? ([url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19356614 ]which is a known, 0.7 in a million side effect of vaccination[/url]).

Regarding the jab they gave our Army is the one in the Gulf war
and the Americans gave to there Army but the Americans gave them
compensation where we have not in any way owned up to it.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_syndrome ]The cause of Guld War Syndrome is currently unknown.[/url] There are several possible factors including simultaneous exposure to nerve gas inhibitors, pesticides, oil well fires, chemical weapons, depleted uranium and [u][i]possibly[/i][/u] some components of the anthrax vaccine (though several studies have concluded there is no link).

Regarding the Jab for children I was refering to the MMR Jab.
Again complications and again will not take the blame

Really? What complications? Where?

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy ]There was a [i]possible[/i] link with Autism suggested in the conclusions of [u]one[/u] study of [u]12[/u] children[/url], the lead author of which not only received £55,000 from lawyers trying to sue vaccine makers, but also held a patent on a rival vaccine and [url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article565188.ece ]currently faces 11 charges of professional misconduct by the GMC[/url].

10 of the original 12 authors have retracted this conclusion after it was discovered that the figures were altered and many, many [url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12421889 ]subsequent studies of far larger sample groups of vaccinated children have found absolutely no link with autism[/url].

Graham S LOL Percentages typical of a goverment T-wat!

These are Peoples Lives and of loved ones and family members
If this Vaccine is safe or any other vaccine/drug come to that.
Then there should be no more than a mild head ache or of similar.
Not say several deaths or any deaths nore deffects or
deformed or anything else comes to that.
So if you think your Death rate is only a statistic and very happy
with that!
Then I really do hope that you or a member of your family
fall down and die from it and see you defend and stand by your waste full
percentage of Human Life.

The cause of the Gulf Syndrome IS known and thats why the American
goverment paid up has there troops was in the same place and exposed with the same atmosphere and given the same drug. Funny that!

Again you talk about percentages as just numbers
These little percentages are Human beings so your talking Crap
A Death is not a side effect, A deformed or disfigured person
or persons is not a side effect.
This is clearly the markings of a failed vaccine/drug.

If these failed dugs/vaccines are side effects why did these
companys pay out.

Graham S LOL Percentages typical of a goverment T-wat!

I have nothing to do with the government.

If this Vaccine is safe or any other vaccine/drug come to that.
Then there should be no more than a mild head ache or of similar.
Not say several deaths or any deaths nore deffects or
deformed or anything else comes to that.

Fair enough, but if you want to only use drugs that are 100% safe and have no known side-effects worse than a headache then I'm afraid you will have to reject practically all known medicine. Even paracetamol kills people.

In the less black-and-white world of reality, it comes down to a balance of risks. So a 0.7 in a million risk of death might be considered reasonable if it prevents an infection that kills 1 in 100. That's just the nature of medicine. Sorry if that offends you.

I really do hope that you or a member of your family
fall down and die from it and see you defend and stand by your waste full
percentage of Human Life.

Well that's not very nice now is it? 😐

The cause of the Gulf Syndrome IS known

It is? Oh that's great news. What did they decide it was in the end?
Or do you just mean the [URL= http://www.gulfweb.org/doc_show.cfm?ID=815 ]US congressional panel report[/URL] that reckoned it was probably a combination of anti-nerve gas agents and pesticides, but wanted a fund of 60 million dollars annually to continue research?

Like Drac I can get the vaccine in approximately 10 days time.

However, as I have been in close contact (thanks NHS Direct :evil:) with at least 20 people probably suffering from flu/swine flu over the past couple of months, isn't it a case of shutting the gate after the horse has bolted ?

The biggest joke was that an A+E Department, in a hospital which shall remain nameless, was sending suspected swine-flu suffers out of the waiting room in A+E to stand in the corridor and wait for a taxi or lift home. The corridor just happened to be the main route into the hospital for patients arriving by ambulance and they were standing directly outside 'resus'. Genius 😯

Same here Woody introduced to now at least half a dozen times, most recent being just last night. So far not had caught it but going to have the vaccine anyway.

Grantway is now classed as the most pathetic person on this forum and should really be ashamed at his comment towards GrahamS.

How Drac Now hes been totaled has one of hes calculated ALL OK
Percentages he goes all human.

Congratulations on bringing up MMR, it was only a matter of time...

And back to the OP
I kind of thought that the vaccine for healthcare workers as potential vectors was only a part of the story, the other side of it is to reduce possible sickness absence should H1N1 cause an influx of inpatients during the usual winter pressures period.

Thanks Drac.

How Drac Now hes been totaled has one of hes calculated ALL OK
Percentages he goes all human.

I keep re-reading this sentence, but I've got no idea what it means?

As I said, I'm sorry if looking at the numbers behind the relative risks upsets you.

No one is claiming that a person dying from an adverse reaction to some drug is anything short of a terrible tragedy for those involved.

But you do have to have a little bit of cold perspective and decide if the benefits outweigh the risks (which is one of the central themes of this thread).

Don't forget that an "adverse reaction" to peanuts kills around 10 people every year in the UK, but we don't generally consider them to be unsafe.