Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think if you're going to spend a lot of money vaccinating children against flu you should make sure it works?

34 replies

bumbleymummy · 07/02/2015 13:10

A massive push for vaccinating young children. Lots of guilt tripping if you decided against it - you're selfish/putting people at risk etc. Turns out it doesn't work anyway! Ridiculous.

OP posts:
Nomama · 07/02/2015 13:17

Huh?

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 07/02/2015 13:19

Good point, well argued. Hmm

ouryve · 07/02/2015 13:20

If only the crystal balls used to help scientists predict which flu strains would be in the wild in 6 months time were foolproof, eh? Damn you genetic drift.

Original poster
bumbleymummy · 07/02/2015 13:34

Ouryve, they don't have to be foolproof but you would expect a reasonable degree of accuracy if you're going to push ahead with a campaign and try to encourage as many parents as possible to vaccinate their children. I imagine it will impact on next year's uptake figures.

OP posts:
Nomama · 07/02/2015 13:38

Again, huh?

What have you been reading to be so annoyed about the flu vacc?

Nomama · 07/02/2015 13:40

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/06/flu-vaccine-mismatch-public-health-strain

There you go, you probably read this. You could have said so...

... and you could have read it, and answered your own questions!

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 07/02/2015 13:40

It mutated out of all estimation.It happens. What do you think should have been done?

AuntieStella · 07/02/2015 13:41

What else do you think they should have done to predict the main strains in circulation?

CruCru · 07/02/2015 13:41

Problem is, it takes at least seven months to make the flu vaccine (according to the nurse at my GP). So when new strains pop up, there is a delay before they can be incorporated into the vaccine.

FindoGask · 07/02/2015 13:42

viruses mutate. It's how they roll.

WD41 · 07/02/2015 13:45

Oh look, an anti vaxxer who doesn't understand vaccines or illnesses.

AuntieStella · 07/02/2015 13:45

Yy, CruCru.

The vaccine appears to work very well against the strains it includes. It does not work for the new strain that was not included.

The vaccine would have been better if that strain had been predicted - and it is something that all those scientists working in the area were unable to do (and this can be demonstrated by emergence dates).

And that's why I asked OP what else could/should have been done to change the use of epidemiological date to improve predictiveness?

missingmumxox · 07/02/2015 14:03

Way to go OP, infinite the years and years they got it right, and bitch the year due to you know, viruses doing what viruses do, mutate, they where not accurately able to predict.

Pesky scientists I bet they just do it deliberately to piss us all off.

missingmumxox · 07/02/2015 14:04

Should read ignore, not infinite!!

^^ in fact there is one predictive thing I would be happy to bitch about

TheWorldOfBullshit · 07/02/2015 14:06

Who has been saying that people who decide against it are selfish?

wobblyweebles · 07/02/2015 14:15

Oh look, an anti vaxxer who doesn't understand vaccines or illnesses.

Quite.

Coyoacan · 07/02/2015 14:18

These vaccines must have made the pharmaceutical company billions on profits.

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 07/02/2015 14:22

The relevance of profit being?

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 07/02/2015 14:24

Vaccines are pretty unprofitable actually.

PopularNamesInclude · 07/02/2015 14:25

I do love an ignorant vax thread. Carry on.

OddBoots · 07/02/2015 14:29

It's pretty impressive that for most years, given how readily flu mutates, it offers a 50% protection.

I'm one of those who pays out privately to have a flu jab so I guess I could regard it as a waste of my money this year but I don't, it's one of those events of nature.

I am sure there is ongoing work to try to find a way to make the vaccines more quickly and therefore have more time to decide the strains to be used but that won't happen without funding from one source or another.

HarveySchlumpfenburger · 07/02/2015 14:45

As far as I can tell, the majority of H3 viruses that they have isolated are not the mutated strain. So the vaccine will still offer protection. Nobody has said it doesn't work. The 3% protection figure is unreliable as it's from mid season data and could be much higher, although still less than you would expect. Here's the euro surveillance paper for anyone interested.
www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=21025

The fact that flu levels are still lower in areas where there was high uptake of the vaccine suggests that it is working to an extent. Maybe they misjudged it slightly, it happens, it's not an exact science, but they are usually spot on. If vaccine uptake is lower next year I suspect it will be because of how this has been reported not because they got the vaccine wrong.

26Point2Miles · 07/02/2015 17:12

Why are kids being vaccinated? Has there been a surge in flu related deaths? I had no idea it was offered to anyone but the elderly or those who paid privately

I had it myself privately 24 years ago when working for some v famous people who did not want our germs! Hardly had a cough or cold since

DisappointedOne · 07/02/2015 17:21

I thought the child one covered 4 strains so was worth doing this year anyway.

DisappointedOne · 07/02/2015 17:22

There's a programme for all 2,3 and 4 year olds and plans are to extend up to 11 over the coming years.

It's not just about protecting individual children. It's about those that couldn't survive flu and can't be vaccinated.

Swipe left for the next trending thread