If you have an UNDER THREE please read this

[studentmummy]

When the vaccine is available it will not even be OFFERED to UNDER THREE's even though 0-4 year olds are the projected heaviest affected group for MORTALITY. As the mother of a two year old (among other siblings)I resent not having the CHOICE to have my child protected especially if death rates INCREASE. Even the very elderly will take priority over toddlers and babies as they have been allocated vaccine at the very end of the queue.
The government advice is that UNDER THREE'S STAY AT HOME for their own protection instead which is not a realistic option for working or stay at home mothers who will bceome PRISONERS IN THEIR OWN HOMES.
For clarification please read the following :Prof David Salisbury letter to primary care trusts dated 26 June 2009 and goveernment projections for swine flu under NHS choices website. I suggest if you feel as strongly as I do a letter to your MP that under three's are NOT EXPENDABLE but are human beings with full rights as our their mothers!

Eh?

that's an odd bit o' cutting and pasting?

what?

did an under 3 write it

LOL @ harley.

Touche.

What the feck are you on about?

"not a realistic option for working or stay at home mothers"...isn't that just "mothers" then?

Or are there already PRISONERS IN THEIR OWN HOMES mothers who won't give a toss about this (alleged) advice?

Definitely test it out on your very elderly granny first I reckon.

at least there are CAPITALS to let US KNOW what the IMPORTANT WORDS ARE.

I don't know where you got your information from but it's not accurate.

I work for a PCT and we have received no information about targeted populations for the yet-to-be-developed vaccine

goodness if this is some kind of joke its not very funny it's worrying enough

My brother is the pandemic co-ordinator for Oxford. What you've said is correct.

Children under three will not be in the first tanche of offered vaccines and will be receiveing them next year.

I'd rather have the choice not leave it to UK Gov

Well I'd rather my 80 year old dad who has only one lung got a vaccine ahead of my very healthy small child.

BUT THANKS FOR TELLING US.

Why are under 3s not getting it? Is it thier own safety?

I'd rather the very elderly and therefore VERY VULNERABLE get it before my perfectly healthy 2yr old.

Oops! sorry for the spelling mistakes but I am surprised by all the aggression. I am genuinely concerned - do you have a toddler at home and have you been watching the news, researching your history and browsing the net? I know that many of you are a bit anti these vaccinations at the moment but if children do start getting very sick (or worse) in your street wouldn't you like to have the choice?

If so and if you have anything to genuinely add to the debate I'd love to hear from you.

I'm not talking about perpetuating fear but changing the course of government action which is very possible - see Jo Lumley!

Is that just for Oxfordshire cassymummy? Because we've been told they haven't made any firm decisions yet seeing as they haven't quite finished making the vaccine!

studentmummy - are you canvassing opinions for an essay/thesis?

I'm genuinely confused.

yes - I have a 2yr old.

Yes I watch the news
Yes I read the papers

Sidge - I'm in Oxon too - they've released some info publicly this week. However not the bit about excluding the under threes - well that takes a decision away from me then.

However of course that means all preschools will have to close from September till we get a reign on this!

i thought most affected were 5 to 14 year olds, who would be offered vaccine.
but it changes daily

doomed we're all doomed