Advanced search

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.

petition for under 5's to have swine flu vaccination

(92 Posts)
loganberry12 Wed 12-Jan-11 18:58:41

does anyone know if there is a petition set up for this year? im really concerned that our children are not being offered this i may even start one myself if there isnt one

tagliatellemonamour Fri 14-Jan-11 11:50:16

And I think this may be where some of the anger is coming from. If they had never said under-fives needed vaccinating against SF, then there might be some concern now that perhaps they should be. But there wouldn't be the anger. That comes from them offering it for a short while and then withdrawing that offer, along with the lack of an alternative way of getting it for most children (chemists not doing under 16s for a tenner the way they're doing adults). So some parents of under fives are feeling worried, powerless and cheated - hence angry.

bubbleymummy Fri 14-Jan-11 13:10:32

A very small percentage of the under-5 group took up the offer of the vaccine last year anyway. The fatality figures were much higher and people still weren't getting their children vaccinated. This year, it is estimated that over 40% of children will already have natural immunity to swine flu after exposure last year (over 65% in london) and yet there seems to be a huge fuss about it this year - well among mumsnetters anyway!

1048CLAIRE Fri 14-Jan-11 13:23:09

Does anyone know where I can get the swine flu vaccine for my 15month old in South Wales?. We've been refused by the G.P, and have exhausted every other possible souce - Private practicews / clinics,...pharmacies....supermarkets...but there's none available!!! HELP!!

tagliatellemonamour Fri 14-Jan-11 13:33:46

Remember the vaccine wasn't available for the first wave of the pandemic in the spring, only in the autumn. And the SF peak last winter was much lower than the spring one.

The vaccine didn't actually coincide with the first, worst surge in cases.

The current outbreak is much closer to last spring than to last winter. There's a lot more flu like illness about and even if it's not all flu it makes people notice it much more.

tagliatellemonamour Fri 14-Jan-11 13:37:27

It is reassuring knowing that with every outbreak the herd immunity to SF gets better so chances of getting it go down. That's one reason it seems a bit surprising how much SF is about now, given that it hasn't really mutated.

bubbleymummy Fri 14-Jan-11 13:41:20

Even better that swine flu immunity apparently gives you 'super immunity' to other strains of flu - they're trying to base a new universal flu vaccine on it. Quite useful for those who have caught swine flu and recovered to have natural immunity to all flu strains!

ladylush Fri 14-Jan-11 21:16:38

My mum said she'd heard that some under 5s have had a severe adverse reaction to the swine flu jab. Has anyone else heard this and if so, does anyone know where I can get this info? I'd like to get dd vaccinated but only if I can be confident it's safe.

activate Fri 14-Jan-11 21:26:00

Don't get it

If you think the vaccine should be given to chilren,why under 5s? That wouldn't cover the 6 year olds who died

From BBC News in Dec "According to the GP data, produced by the Royal College of GPs, rates of flu are highest in children aged between five and 14, followed by children under four and then those aged between 15 and 44."

so surely your petition should be under 14s

activate Fri 14-Jan-11 21:28:47

here you go

(from Daily Mail I'm afraid)today
"The number of people in critical care in England has fallen from 783 last week to 661.
The majority of deaths hit adults of working age with 70 deaths among the 15-64 years olds. There were nine cases among five to 14 year olds and six deaths in children under the age of five. "

so adults should be vaccinated before children statistically

Ghekogiddy Fri 14-Jan-11 21:39:52

But the over 65s even less at risk so should they wait till last?

BelleDameSansMerci Fri 14-Jan-11 21:48:44

Surely it doesn't matter whether, as individuals, we think this is a serious threat or not, the point is that we should have the choice to immunise (as we had last year).

It is completely clear that this is down to cost and nothing more.

I did have DD immunised last year but when I asked if this meant that she would now be covered or if she needed an annual jab (as per seasonal flu) I was told that no-one actually knows as it's such a new vaccine. hmm

Ghekogiddy Fri 14-Jan-11 21:52:28

Totally Belle i think everyone should have the option of immunisation esp as it can be serious for those not in the at risk groups too.

activate Fri 14-Jan-11 21:59:33

doesn't work like that though does it?

It is an expensive vaccine to offer to the entire population

it will not necessarily protect you as viruses adapt

each year a different flu reaches us, each year people die - the difference here is the media coverage I suppose due to WHO putting us on pandemic status last year

activate Fri 14-Jan-11 22:07:02

so say 50% take up from 61million UK pop

at £6 cost per vaccine alone (ignoring staff and sundries)


BelleDameSansMerci Fri 14-Jan-11 22:19:31

activate one might assume that if the country were purchasing that many vaccines we might be able to negotiate a better "per vaccine" price...

activate Fri 14-Jan-11 22:25:40 ease_10006.htm

Janury 2010
GSK today confirmed that approximately 130 million doses of its pandemic H1N1 adjuvanted vaccine were shipped to governments in the fourth quarter of 2009. These shipments, together with pandemic vaccine products supplied to the US and other governments in the quarter, amount to provisional, unaudited sales of £835 million.

£835 million divided by 130 million doses = £6.42 per dose

activate Fri 14-Jan-11 22:29:47

also recent media coverage quotes £6 to £8 cost to NHS per vaccine so I took th lowest

BelleDameSansMerci Fri 14-Jan-11 22:30:05

But it wasn't sold as one lot - it was sold to various governments and I doubt they worked together to get the best price!

That aside, I don't think £6.42 per citizen is particularly onerous. Probably less than we're allocated for "healthy living" or some other pointless campaign.

WilfShelf Fri 14-Jan-11 22:33:51

I have an under 5. I also have a 6yo who has had the jab because he's finally had an asthma diagnosis. But I'm not sure I support the campaign unless and until I see real evidence. Unless you can provide actual figures that show under 5s are particularly at risk compared to othe groups, I'm afraid you will just look like panic merchants.

I understood the main risk group by age is 45-60. If this is demonstrated by evidence, surely that would be a stronger campaign?

It may be sadder and more worrying for those not yet affected, but it doesn't make it a sane health policy decision in and of itself.

activate Fri 14-Jan-11 22:39:20

I think you are quibbling - of course I don't know the costs but it's pounds not pence

And viruses mutate

I just think that a panic call to vaccinate age groups based on no health stats is naive at best

WilfShelf Fri 14-Jan-11 22:41:52

ooh, I see activate has made similar point. You can usually look up the stats on the HPA and WHO websites IIRC...

BelleDameSansMerci Fri 14-Jan-11 22:43:28

And I disagree - I think we should be given the choice of whether we vaccinate our children or not.

I'm not actually advocating vaccinating the entire population but I do think we should have the choice of vaccinating the under 16s.

activate Fri 14-Jan-11 22:45:13


it is not unde 16s that are most at risk - they are just the media-selling face of it

WilfShelf Fri 14-Jan-11 22:48:23

I agree with activate: for what reasons, as opposed to any other age group? If 45-60 yos are dying more than might be expected, that makes a whole load of under-5s parentless, perhaps. Is it an ethical decision, say, to deny the middle-aged the vaccine when they're at higher risk in such circumstances?

BelleDameSansMerci Fri 14-Jan-11 22:48:40

I suppose because we do everything we can to keep our children "safe", so far as we can?

I can see that I am not being logical. I am responding emotionally to a perceived risk to my child when, by the stats shown, I am, in fact, more at risk than she is (being 45).

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now