Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Flu jab again.....(sorry, but need your opinions..)

14 replies

FairyMum · 24/10/2003 11:30

They are offering us the flu jab at work for free. Is it worth having it? I don't want the flu (especially not the killer flu),but at the same time I am the kind of person who like to rely on natural ways of fighting illness like eating healthily, sleeping etc. I avoid antiobiotics if I can and hardly ever take painkillers.
I now have to admit I am under a certain pressure at work to take the jab. Am I being stupid to stick to my guns not to have the jab ?
What would you have done?

OP posts:
lucy123 · 24/10/2003 11:36

I think I would have the jab, fairymum.

If you are healthy, then there is very little danger to it and it is a much more natural way to fight disease than antibiotics (IYSWIM). Plus the thing about flu is that it can affect anybody, even the healthiest.

On the other hand, you are certainly not being stupid, and don't let them make you think that!

hoxtonchick · 24/10/2003 11:38

i had mine last week. i've got diabetes though so even the gp recommends it.... i've had it for the past few years (though not the year i was pg) & it does seem to work pretty well. dp always seems to succumb at least once a season & i rarely do. i'm the same as you with antibiotics & painkillers, but am quite a fan of 'flu jabs. we are offered them at work too, but i don't think i'll go for a double dose...

mears · 24/10/2003 11:43

Same position as you Fairymum and I am not going to have it. I feel my immune system is pretty good and I don't want to interfere with it. I have known a number of people who became unwell after having it. One colleague ended up hospitalised in the coronary care unit with a reaction to it. My mum and dad have it with no problems though.

zebra · 24/10/2003 11:45

But you don't take antiobiotics for flu given it's a viral condition....

My gut instinct is against flu jab, too, FairyMum, and DH flat-out refuses. But he had pneumonia one year which I believe had developed from being long-term run down by various bugs. I would love him to get flu jabs nowadays because the pneumonia was awful, and I think he tends to be vulnerable to respiratory ailments. He won't, of course. Definitely a personal choice.

mears · 24/10/2003 11:45

bear in mind Fairymum, you will get a plethora of views just like on any child vaccination thread. You know your own body and therefore only you can make that decision. I think it is definately right for vulnerable people (through age or illness) to have it. It is justy not right for me.

Pimpernel · 24/10/2003 12:03

My company always offers us the flu jab as well - I've never taken them up on it. I've had very few days off sick anyway, so I don't want to interfere with my immune system unnecessarily. Even the Department of Health flu vaccination leaflet talks about healthy people not needing to be vaccinated.

Katypie · 25/10/2003 07:31

Think your not vunerable?
The majority of deaths during the 1918 spanish flu epidemic were men between the ages of 20 and 40!

GeorginaA · 25/10/2003 08:27

I'm supposed to be vacinated (I'm asthmatic) but have avoided it so far. I should really go for it though. I know an epidemiologist who's focus of research is on different strains of 'flu so I don't really have an excuse in terms of fears of safety or ignorance about how serious 'flu can be - I'm just lazy and have never made the appointment.

A few years ago, someone at my workplace was hospitalised for several weeks with 'flu. She was a healthy twenty-something with only very mild asthma. It hit her very hard and must have been terrifying for her.

hoxtonchick · 25/10/2003 08:59

GeorginaA, if you do decide to have it this year, they might not let you anyway, 'cos you're pregnant. I had mine a couple of weeks ago, & they said they don't give it to pregnant woman (not that's positively dangerous, it's just untested, like most things). Maybe ask your friend? Still, means you don't have to feel guilty about not making the appointment...

GeorginaA · 25/10/2003 09:20

No, I realise I have a get out clause this time around I wouldn't have anything while I was pregnant anyway "just in case". I will try and make an effort next year though, I will... honest!

Jimjams · 25/10/2003 11:02

Mrisk benefit analysis. if they have guessed the strain correctly,then you are better of having it. if they have guessed the strains incorrectly then you are better off not having it. So flip a coin I guess I think the flu jab is a tricky choice. Definite pros and cond either way.

miranda2 · 25/10/2003 13:57

I have it each year as I had my spleen out following a car accident when I was 18, so my immune system is apparently compromised (can't say I notice normally, but I have to take antibiotics every day).
I asked whether I should take it when I was pregnant and in the end the doctor and I looked at all the evidence and decided yes, as getting flu would mean a high temperature and possible complication into pneumonia etc, which was more dangerous to the baby than the small risk of the jab itself.
there often seems to be an idea around that all medical interventions are bad - hmm, given that only about 70 years ago we only had a 2 in 3 chance of surviving childbirth I think I'm all for modern medicine!!

Jimjams · 25/10/2003 16:09

2 in 3 chance of surviving childbirth? Is that figure corect? (not saying it isn't just curious).

I don't think all medical interventions are bad, but I think it is worth remembering that all medical interventions carry some risk. Obviouly in some cases the potential for risk is so minute and the benefit so great (eg something like insulin for type 1 diabetes) then there is absolutely no decision to be made iyswim. In other cases though the risk/benefit ratio is less clear. i would say the flu jab falls into that category. Pros and cons, and just a case of deciding what is best for you.

GeorginaA · 27/10/2003 15:50

Got a quote from my epidemiologist friend which may or may not be of use (it's a bit lengthy, but I found it really interesting):

"No vaccine is entirely safe, but the latest stuff about it being able to give you flu is totally untrue. The vaccine used in the UK (and North America and many other countries) is made out of three types of killed virus. Flu virus is pretty fragile, there is no chance it is alive, and even if it were, it would be pretty hopeless at infecting humans.

At a personal level, you already know that I got vaccinated for the first time this year. The feeling among those of us who obsessively watch the lab reports is that a big wave of H3N2 fujian-like influenza is about to hit the UK (in fact, wouldn't be surprised to see it in the report this Wednesday, given some of the local school outbreaks we've had already). The vaccine will only be partially effective against this strain. What `partially' means here is not clear, it may be enough to entirely protect some people, and when it doesn't, I suspect it will reduce symptoms and/or shorten infection. I'm not a medical practicioner, but I would urge my friends to seriously think about getting vaccinated, especially if they come into conctact with anyone at risk (the very young, the very old, and those with certain medical conditions like asthma).

The WHO factsheet is quite useful, though a little conservative on the annual death rate I think:

www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/2003/fs211/en/index.html

In measles, the attitude that it is best to get infection as a kid and allow immunity to happen naturally would mean of the order of a thousand measles deaths per year at present day in the UK if there was no vaccine in use. So I feel the same way about such an argument with regard to flu - this is something we can live without. I think that there is something unnatural about these epidemics anyway, they persist through our population being clustered in large towns and cities. Flu would never have been an issue in prehistoric times. The fact is that the world is as it is, and flu has the chance to perpetually circulate and mutate. We'd be mad not to try protect ourselves."

and later she said:

"Quite how "effective" the flu vaccine is depends on the vaccine strain and the circulating strain. If there is a close match, then the vaccine is near perfect for everyone. The problem is that there other other viruses that cause colds and other infections that seem like flu, so it gets said that the vaccine has failed.

There are "antigenic shifts" or changes in "subtype" where half of the virus genome comes from influenza in another species (aquatic birds, possibly via chickens). This happened in 1918, 1957 and 1968. There have been smalled outbreaks of alien types recorded recently, but they didn't transmit that well (but were deadly to many).

Then there is the normal gradual mutation of influenza ("antigenic drift", but of course its not that simple either, it turns out that this mutation isn't that smooth and gradual, sometimes there are bigger steps than others (e.g. this Fujian-like strain that is emerging now).

The vaccine will still be of some use in years like this year. Anti-viral drugs should work just fine (but everyone takes them too late, or can't get prescribed them). The current vaccine would be useless in the case of a subtype shift (like 1918), but scientists aren't idle on this one.

You might as well not bother if you don't mind being horribly ill for a week or so, and you don't mind the risk of it leading to something worse, and you don't mind the risk of infecting people around you, some of whom may have serious complications. It is up to you, and there isn't enough vaccine to cover the whole population anyway.

It is possible to get flu every year, and there are some who seem to never catch it. We have some idea as to what might be behind this. It might be down to something called MHC type. (You remember there were stories of some people who never caught HIV despite having high exposure? Well that was the same thing.) This is something I'm working on at the moment."

New posts on this thread. Refresh page