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!

Thanks to Butterbeer, especially for locating and reading Salisbury's letter!

What I don't really understand is why over three's are prioritised but under three's aren't. Can anyone explain this to me?

Is it because the vaccine won't work, will compromise their immune system or there just isn't enough of it for them? Or do they make a low political priority?

What about children who are two to three or nearly three - can we give them a chance - it all seems a bit arbitary to exclude them on a strict age basis!

If the rationale really is that we can just keep them at home to protect them then I think that this needs serious re-evaluation!

The whole point though is that this isn't like the normal seasonal flu that we get in the winter, and that we usually vaccinate against.

The high incidence of cases during the summer months can attest to this.

In previous pandemic flu outbreaks the young adults/children were affected more than the elderly due to the way that the flu interacted with the immune system (through cytokine storms).

It is - I suspect a safety thing.

If there has been limited testing then you want to give it to highly VULNERABLE groups first as they will see the most benefit (which may include some under 3's with underlying conditions).

I suspect that the intention is that by the time they get to the under 3's they will have built up a better package of safety data on the vaccine.

I am only speculating though.

studentmummy - I think the thinking is that if you can develop a herd immunity in the school age kids, the younger ones are less likely to pick it up.

However for this to work I would assume all nursery and preschool provision would be closed forthwith to limit exposure? Obviously the end of term is a good thing in this respect but my DD is due to start preschool in September and her preschool is part of a school which takes up to 11 year olds. So if this plan goes ahead am I supposed to keep her off till they have all been vaxed?

Breastfeeding sounds like a good idea - I did it for well over a year and would highly recommend it. It sounds like the best protection available for babies and young toddlers so far - good for you!!

Unfortunatley my two and half year old has a full set of teeth so a dead end there I'm afraid for me!

you can still breastfeed toddlers and older, SM, ya know

I think it's because it's more-or-less government policy to get 3s and over into school or institutional childcare for at least part of the week (that isn't meant to sound disparaging about institutional childcare; my DCs use it themselves). So as a group they are more vulnerable than the under-3s.

Under-3s will still be offered the vaccine on the same basis as "normal" adults. I actually feel happier that there will have been a chance to see how the vaccination program is working out before I have to make a decision on whether to vaccinate my 1yo.

MissAnthrope, I thought the cytokine storms affected young healthy adults (20-40) rather than children?

Funnily enough my 2.9 month old DD has a full set of teeth and yet has never bitten me! Stick your finger in your mouth and suck it - do you feel teeth? No. Yet I will bet you have adult teeth in there.

DS has bitten me - trying out his new gnashers, just the one mind you, and never since. He's one today! Hurrah!

Sorry oneopinionatedmother to pick up on your particular comment but we don't have immunity to anything until we are exposed to it (apart from the temporary immunity we get from our own mums when we are born/breastfed). Any time your children have been sick means that they haven't been immune to whatever it was that they caught - but now they are because they have fought it off. We are exposed to all kinds of illnesses everyday and any one of them could make us sick - or not. Same with the flu.

The prediction is that there will be enough vaccine for everyone who wants it, isn't it?

MissAnthrope - yes cytokine storms do usually affect peole with a FULLY developed immune system...and they are not especially common either.

'Cytokine storms'?
(sorry to be thick)

the reason I wouldn't want it even if it was available is that there is not enough data either way to make a decision. such a short period of time is not enough to come up with and test a drug - or indeed evaluate the full risk-spread of an illness.

so I'm best off staying away from the hospital and doctors surgery, where all the ill people are.

i mean it is shocking that my baby might die from this inaction, but then on the other hand, how do i know they won't anyway/ because of the jab/ from something else completely.

breastfeeding is great, but surely it can only help against things i have immunity to, which includes 'generic' flu, but not this strain?

my 2yo is way too toothy anyway, though I could give her some in a cup....(she always tries to nick her brothers food anyway)

Well, no vaccine for under three's is no good but if you would accept a positive point on it. When they get the vaccine next year, they would get a better tested and corrected jab.

I'm sorry but even with a child in the priority group (in terms of age, problematic immune system and asthma) I am apprehensive about giving him a new-just created-we have not had opportunity yet to see if there are some undesirable side effects- vaccine to my child)

Interesting this dh and I were debating last night whether we would have the vaccine or not!
If your under 3 is in institutional care do they get it? seems unfair if not

one opinionated mother - you have every right to make your own choices for your child as with MMR - that's o.k. by me.

However, I really want the choice for my own small child who I believe is at high risk because he has special needs (not medical) and attends a lot of extra classes and hospital appointments. I genuinely believe that there are others like me who would welcome a choice for their toddlers if a vaccine is available - especially if they attend nursery or pre-school regularly.
If this illness had a label like meningitis attached and the same stats would the concern be higher?

They'll all still get (or be offered) it! Just at the same priority level that you get it, or I get it, or the OP gets it. It seems very likely that all under-3s will have the chance to be vaccinated before the winter sets in, particularly as (a) the priority order is still in flux and there could be new groups separated out from the default category, and (b) so many people seem to be planning to opt out.

Isn't the flu jab always being modified slightly to target the latest strain?

So not so much a 'new untested' vaccine as such, more just tweaked for whatever strain it's aimed at.

That's just my take on it though...probably wrong.

One last point - I'm very tired now and will be woken at daybreak tomorrow by the child chorus!

Is this debate essentially about freedom of choice? - At the end of the day, I would like the choice to exist for me as parent (who knows my child best) to make this decision and not some government body to take it away from me.

If children and babies begin to get affected in higher numbers (as I sincerely hope they do not) then parents may begin to get more emotive like me and demand more action.

One thought - If there really is enough vaccine for everyone this year then why have a priority list in the first place?
I do not want to get ill as I have too many people depending on me but will gladly take my place behind children and the sick.

Can I just point out that you can BF a baby/toddler without getting bitten! My DD1 had teeth from about 3 months but was BF till 8 months when she had lots of teeth! I am now BF DD2 who is possibly starting to get her first tooth. Don't know how long I will BF her for but certainly won't depend on when her teeth come through!

Back on subject. Bit of a boring answer but I just think that whoever makes these decisions, knows a hell of a lot more about it all than we do - so why question it?

To be fair to OP she is quite correct!
The vaccine will be offered to the 3-16 age group first!
IIRC the under 3's do note actually feature in the initial groups to be vaccinated.
She is also correct in saying the group with the predicted highest mortality is the under 5's.
As a GP working on the front line so likely to bring it home to my children (one an 18 month old), I must admit (even as one not prone to panic or scaremongering),that I would probably prefer my LO to be offered the vaccine, I could then at least have the choice to refuse or not!

The intention is that there will be enough vaccine for everyone over a 12-month period. So, knock off those who decide not to be vaccinated, or to wait a while and see (based on threads like this, I'd think quite a high percentage). Then consider that the priority order isn't yet fixed (as Salisbury specifically says in his letter). It's entirely possible, and I suspect even likely, that 0-2 year olds will be split out into another priority group above "everyone else", as may other groups as the assessment of likely impact is completed. So I think 0-2 year olds will be pretty close to the front of the "everyone else" queue, and (given that the vast majority of people will be in the "everyone else" category) that should mean that they get in before the winter.

I don't see why it's a question of "parental choice" for you to decide that (say) your 2yo should be prioritised over (say) my 80yo grandmother, if the expert public health opinion is that my grandmother is more at risk. Do I say "no, sorry Gran, you can't have the vaccine today because studentmummy decided your dose should go to her DD instead; it's a question of freedom of choice"? Bear in mind that it's only pensioners and poultry workers who fit in between three-year-olds and two-year-olds in the priority order (and I suspect the poultry workers is because they don't want the swine flu turning into bird-swine flu and getting even more problematic).

Butterbeer - thanks for your response - good to see you aren't sleeping much either! - it's positive to have an open informed debate on this one as I think many mums may be interested.
However, your suggestion that 0-2 year olds are shunted to the top of the 'everyone else' queue is at the moment predicated on conjecture only and not confirmed in writing. Also the projected mortality rate is highest among 0-4 year olds (as are current hospitalisation ratios) not among the elderly. Swine flu seems at the moment to be targeting primarily the young and pregnant women as well as those with underlying conditions. Every year thousands of the aged die from the standard flu virus and this is a terrible seasonal event but imagine the response when toddlers start dropping around us and we learn that that could have been saved through early use of vaccine. A figure of 1 in 200 deaths suddenly seems very high when applied to infants and small children - we no longer live in the victorian age.

macdoodle - any idea why the under 3s are a different priority group? is it due to potential vaccine safety/side effect factors?

'my two year old is very toothy'

are you seriously saying that whether you continued bf was decided by teeth?

thats awful