New Intranasal flu vaccine for Toddlers . Yes or no ?

[IAmADonkeyOnTheEdge]

Just had a letter asking us to bring our 3.5 yr Dd for a flu vaccine ( up the nose !). No idea how they will persuade to sniff it up and also not sure if we should go for it or not.... Anyone else having it?

There are many different strains of flu, the vaccine cant possibly cover them all?

It normally covers the three most widely circulating viruses. That's why swine flu took the various labs by surprise and a new vaccine was produced.

This is also why flu vaccines are currently given annually, although there is work on a one off vaccine showing promise at the moment.

I don't get the herd immunity argument with regards to flu vaccines for toddlers. The primary person who benefits is the child, any herd immunity (in this case) is a side effect / consequence.

I also don't understand why people think that better hygiene and living conditions would eradicate viruses without vaccines.

It is simply not true, it reduces the opportunities for transmission, but it doesn't stop anyone coming into contact with it from developing the disease, if it did there would be no discussion about flu because it would have been irradiated by better hygiene and slum clearances.

No of course, PigletJohn - I should have said - 'Some' and not 'a lot'; it was remiss of me to try to speak for all the old.

Except of course, I didn't pretend I was. I gave the example of one other old person (MIL) who would have the flu jab. But, I would add, that she is still very much in possession of her faculties, walks to town most days, is still active in her Church, still has friends around her. These things all make a difference to whether an old person considers life still worth living and seeks out preventative measures for their health.

Except of course, you did say "a lot", when you should have said "some of the old I have met, but not others".

PigletJohn - you appear to be quibbling for the sake of it.

CPtart who is a practice nurse and is therefore speaking from experience said:
Many elderly choose to refuse it however.... And later said I saw several today in clinic, almost half refused.

Another poster reported an 85% take up, but that's still quite a few who say no. Whether half is 'a lot' or 15% is 'a lot' could no doubt keep a lawyer busy for some time.

I offered a reason as to why some elderly people say no. I didn't even say that this was why all old people said no.

yes, I think you are quibbling to try to cover up your misleading and unsupported claim that a lot of the said herd i.e. the adults, don't want to know about it

Boring facts time, I actually found a survey. So here is what the over-65s themselves say as to why they don't get the vaccine: Cross-sectional survey of older peoples' views related to influenza vaccine uptake: BMC Public Health, 11 Oct 2006

Biggest single lot are the ones who don't think they need it because they "don't get ill". Best of luck to them!

Figures are percentage of all non-takers. Adds up to more than 100% because some have more than one reason.

Attitudes to vaccination

Don't get ill: 44%
Perception vaccine makes them ill: 25%
Not interested: 17%
Perception would not work: 12%
Do not like injections: 11%
Allergy to vaccine: 5%
Did not get around to it: 5%

Knowledge

Never had it before: 30%
Did not know needed each year: 6%
Volunteered thought they were too old: 5%
Did not know could have it: 5%

Physical barriers

No transport: 6%
Unable to attend because of ill health: 5%
Time of clinics not suitable: 1%
Too far away: 1%

Sash, it would seem that better hygiene, living standards got rid of scarlet fever, cholera, typhoid in Britain. I'm not posting any links but search for charts going back to pre 1850 and see how much disease there was and how much they had all reduced by the time the vaccine was introduced.

Sash, regarding herd immunity, I don't particularly think a child needs protected from flu, and the vaccine is not anywhere near guaranteed to work so then herd immunity isn't a consequence, it's the reason for the vaccine and that's the moral objection again.

Interesting figures arkestra.

Some back of an envelope computations show that about 20% of the target group turned the vaccine down (which squares with anecdotal evidence above of between 15% - 50% turning it down).

If that were to translate to the whole over 65 population of which there are ~10 million, that would be 2 million people.

Frontdoorstep, the JCVI line is that the recipient always benefits on balance from having the flu vaccine, whether a not-at-risk child/adult or someone in an at-risk category.

But the benefit is obviously way more important for the at-risks, eg the ones significantly more likely to die.

So I don't think they are proposing the not-at-risk children are taking a net risk for others. Just that the risk/reward balance is not so overwhelming for them.

Eg if someone offered me a flu vaccination for free I would take it. Have done in the past.

Interesting figures LaVolcan

So you are saying that 80% of the target group accept the offer of immunisation? In which case you could say that "a lot of the said herd i.e. the adults, DO want to receive it"

I was taking the figures arkestra quoted and then extrapolating that to the whole population.

You were taking issue with a statement when I said that a lot of older adults didn't want the vaccination. Your comment to this was: I did not think that "A LOT" meant one man you knew closely plus some comments by some others. I think 2 million is quite a lot of people, but we will obviously have to differ on that. It is certainly more than my father and a few friends.

The fact that perhaps 8 million do want it doesn't invalidate what I said.

80% is 'a lot'

I'm by no means anti vaccine, my DC are up to date with the regular ones. But they will be having this one over my dead body, theres no point to it, they play god with these flu jabs as it is, my dp has usually had one every year, but last year they decided he wasn't using his inhaler enough to have it!?

Flu in the elderly can lead to long periods of costly hospitalisation and this is partly the reason for encouraging herd immunity

And presumably one of the main reasons for introduction of the jab.

If anyone is particularly interested & has time it's worth reading back through the JCVI minutes - they often discuss this sort of thing openly.

I spent an interesting coffee break reading the arguments around whether or not to introduce mumps (another vaccination introduced on economic grounds).

Personally I refuse all vaccinations introduced for reasons of economics unless I am in an at-risk group.

Not sure why something being economically effective is an argument against it?

The JCVI line is that the vaccination is also beneficial in itself. Just that there are better things to spend money on than vaccinating absolutely everyone.

I didn't say it was an argument against. I said I refuse to have vaccinations that have been introduced for reasons of economics. Mainly because it usually means the disease is mild/self limiting for nearly everyone & I'm not prepared to take the risk of side effects for something that isn't going to give me/my family much benefit.

I have BTDTGTTS when it c

It comes to regression into severe disability though

Is there a safety issue for those people who are against the toddler vaccine? I've read this thread with interest and many of the reasons seem to be around autonomy or free will. Personally, if it might mean my ds doesn't get a nasty flu bug (he feels awful, possible complications, me off work) and the vaccine itself is relatively safe then dh and I will go for it.

nosleeptilever, although I am quite clearly against this on moral grounds, I also have safety issues with it.

It's to be given every year, it will be many many years before we know if there is any long term damage from having this many vaccines, I don't want to look back in twenty years time when my child has a long term health problem and wonder if the vaccine caused it. Im not saying that will happen anyway, I'm giving a reason of what might happen.

There was a report recently about the pandemrix vaccine and narcolepsy , I can't take that kind of risk.

I do accept that nothing is life is totally safe but this seems a risk not worth taking, coupled with my moral objections, I can't find anything positive to say about it.

At the end of the day, this is a vaccine being offered to children in order to protect older people (me). Therefore, bizarrely I think for a vaccine, the benefit to the recipient is not its main purpose. That is merely a side effect.

nosleeptilever - I think a good dose of the flu if healthy can be a good thing. Some epidemics for example don't tend to attack older (more vulnerable) people for example because they have a good dose of immunity still from a very similar virus they caught years and years ago. Presumably that immunity can be passed onto newborns via the placenta as well. Vaccination does tend to bugger up long term immunity and passive immunity.

And yes pandemrix and narcolepsy and the fact that once again a vaccination was introduced despite safety concerns coming out from other countries (the other case I'm referring to being the urabe fiasco). This report from the Torygraph a few days ago And this from the BBC And note this from the Torygraph piece: the drug company had an indemnity clause in its contract meaning the government will foot the bill I'm not keen on drugs companies having indemnity against any damage their drugs do. Have a read of this from last year Again the Torygraph - they're by far the best broadsheet for vaccine articles btw ^In July the European Medicine Agency said that as a precautionary measure, the vaccine should only be given to the under-20s if they are at risk of contracting swine flu and alternative jabs are not available. Its analysis found that for every 100,000 adolescents who are given the injection, up to seven are likely to develop narcolepsy.
However Britain’s drug watchdog said the recommendations were not binding and that Pandemrix would not be restricted in this country^

The UK ALWAYS does this. Well since the 90's, it used to have a more cautious approach to vaccination, now it always waits until really the evidence cannot say anything else. I prefer a more cautious approach, where open, unbiased investigations begin the moment a concern is raised :watches pigs flying past window:

I believe in an individual approach to vaccination, so assessing each vaccination for the benefit it will provide to the recipient. In our family I feel the potential risks outweigh benefits and so none of us have it. The risks of course might be different for someone with asthma or a chronic lung condition.

I read the link which says:

"The programme is intended to prevent serious influenza infections which occur in some children, especially those who have chronic diseases, as well as the milder but unpleasant cases of flu that affect very large numbers of otherwise healthy children each year. Since young children spread flu in our community, vaccinating children against this disease is likely to have a very important effect by preventing more serious cases and deaths in other vulnerable groups, particularly the elderly (known as herd immunity)."

I gather some posters have decided that the first sentence is a lie, and the second sentence is the real reason. How did they come to that conclusion?

The Torygraph - yes, their science articles generally are sound IMO.

the drug company had an indemnity clause in its contract meaning the government will foot the bill

Is this entirely unreasonable though - if the government is promoting vaccines why shouldn't it foot the bill if they are found to cause damage? They could mandate stringent safety tests of the vaccines by the drugs companies, just so that the companies involved aren't given carte blanch to indulge in unsafe practices.

I think piglet John (although admittedly I haven't checked, so this is from memory the JCVI minutes make it clear it was mass introduced mainly to prevent infections in the elderly. Obviously at risk children would have been given it anyway. There was a quote from a dept of health bod at the time saying that somewhere, although whether I'll be able to find it is a different matter).

Do you think LaVolcan? I can see your point, but I rather worry it encourages cutting corners. It could I suppose encourage companies to report problems but judging by the initial comments in response to the narcolepsy question that didn't happen.