Swine Flu Vaccination + general swine flu chat thread

tallaght01

funkyflea wrote: »

Hi all, sorry haven't read the whole thread, but we're having a baby boy due in december, what should we do to protect the child? Will the doctor refer my OH for a vaccination?

Should I avoid the vaccine? I'm relatively healthy besides being on antibiotics for the past year and a half on and off..

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055475288

di11on

tallaght01 wrote: »

Yea, in 1976 500 people got guillain arre syndrome, and 25 of them died. Some of that will have been because of vaccination, as GBS is one of the side effects of vaccines. Some will have been because if you take 40 million people (The number that were vaccinated) and look at the for a few weeks, some will die.

But vaccines have come a long way since 1976. This vaccine is pretty much the same as the flu vaccine loads of us get every year, and we're not all keeling over from that.

We're not "keeling over" from swine flu either. The point is that, surely, you want the mortality rate of the disease to outweigh that of the virus for it to be any use and in 1976 that surely wasn't the case... because the pandemic didn't materialise.

tallaght01

di11on wrote: »

We're not "keeling over" from swine flu either. The point is that, surely, you want the mortality rate of the disease to outweigh that of the virus for it to be any use and in 1976 that surely wasn't the case... because the pandemic didn't materialise.

As yourself why the pandemic may not have materialised

Then, do the following worst case scenario maths:

25 deaths in 40 million vaccinated Vs 1 death in 1000 infected with swine flu.

Having said that, the trials of the current swine flu vaccine have been going a few weeks now, and no adverse effects yet. So all seems good.

di11on

tallaght01 wrote: »

As yourself why the pandemic may not have materialised

Are you suggesting that vaccinating less that 20% of the population is sufficient to avoid a pandemic? If vaccinating less than 20% of americans was enough, then surely it wasn't pandemic material to start with.

Then, do the following worst case scenario maths:

25 deaths in 40 million vaccinated Vs 1 death in 1000 infected with swine flu.

Having said that, the trials of the current swine flu vaccine have been going a few weeks now, and no adverse effects yet. So all seems good.

The one death here had an underlying medical condition. The sample size is not signficant enough yet to draw those types of conclusions. Also, don't forget the 500 out of the 40 million that sufferred Guillain-Barre syndrome as you mention.

Do you know of recent studies which give the rate of Guillain-Barre Syndrome associated with the modern seasonal flue vaccine?

tallaght01

di11on wrote: »

Are you suggesting that vaccinating less that 20% of the population is sufficient to avoid a pandemic? If vaccinating less than 20% of americans was enough, then surely it wasn't pandemic material to start with.



The one death here had an underlying medical condition. The sample size is not signficant enough yet to draw those types of conclusions. Also, don't forget the 500 out of the 40 million that sufferred Guillain-Barre syndrome as you mention.

Do you know of recent studies which give the rate of Guillain-Barre Syndrome associated with the modern seasonal flue vaccine?

You're confusing dealing with a pandemic and preventing as pandemic. Vaccinating a small village in Mexico would have prevented this pandemic.

The sample size is worldwide. It's nothing to do with Ireland.

I don't remember the GBS figure off hand for the seasonal flu vaccine. But it's 1 in every few thousand. This vaccine is pretty much identical to it, so the rates are likely to be very similar. It's mostly non life threatening, and I reckon most of those 25 people wouldn't have died from it nowadays. They may not have even made it to ICU. I don't think I've ever seen a GBS death.

Taking a safe vaccine that I take every year V a virus with a 1 in 1000 death rate and a 1 in 200 hospitalisation rate (with 30-50% of those hospitalised ending up in ICU), I'd go with the vaccine.

di11on

tallaght01 wrote: »

You're confusing dealing with a pandemic and preventing as pandemic. Vaccinating a small village in Mexico would have prevented this pandemic.

The sample size is worldwide. It's nothing to do with Ireland.

I don't remember the GBS figure off hand for the seasonal flu vaccine. But it's 1 in every few thousand. This vaccine is pretty much identical to it, so the rates are likely to be very similar. It's mostly non life threatening, and I reckon most of those 25 people wouldn't have died from it nowadays. They may not have even made it to ICU. I don't think I've ever seen a GBS death.

Taking a safe vaccine that I take every year V a virus with a 1 in 1000 death rate and a 1 in 200 hospitalisation rate (with 30-50% of those hospitalised ending up in ICU), I'd go with the vaccine.

Thanks tallaght01.

I reckon, that if you quoted hard cold stats along with solid references to sources, with very little comment, that would be enough. There is so much clouding the issue that the information people should actually use to base a decision on gets lost in the confusion.

A fact sheet ennumerating the risks of the seasonal flu vaccine (and possibly other flu vaccines) along with rates of occurrence vs. swine flu stats should be enough.

The piece of the puzzle people miss is the probability associated with the risk... people very often make bad decisions based solely on the perceived impact instead (MMR fiasco for example).

tallaght01

di11on wrote: »

Thanks tallaght01.

I reckon, that if you quoted hard cold stats along with solid references to sources, with very little comment, that would be enough. There is so much clouding the issue that the information people should actually use to base a decision on gets lost in the confusion.

A fact sheet ennumerating the risks of the seasonal flu vaccine (and possibly other flu vaccines) along with rates of occurrence vs. swine flu stats should be enough.

The piece of the puzzle people miss is the probability associated with the risk... people very often make bad decisions based solely on the perceived impact instead (MMR fiasco for example).

It's funny you should say that. I've been asking in work for exactly that, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for it. There are a lot of people out there who would love to look at the numbers and some of the details of the studies. But we don't give that info out. We say "trust us, these vaccines are safe".

I think it's a shame we haven't engaged the public with the science a bit more. Some people would have no interest, but others would.

The_Conductor

tallaght01 wrote: »

It's funny you should say that. I've been asking in work for exactly that, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for it. There are a lot of people out there who would love to look at the numbers and some of the details of the studies. But we don't give that info out. We say "trust us, these vaccines are safe".

I think it's a shame we haven't engaged the public with the science a bit more. Some people would have no interest, but others would.

I think there is an assumption that the average person walking down the street isn't sufficiently literate to understand the data, without significant interpretation being done before hand- and the easiest way to get around this is simply not to open the data- as you'd be pestered to hell with stupid questions.

There is also the aspect of a little information being a dangerous thing- many people will take something innocuous from a page of statistics and turn it into something it was never intended..........

If we can't trust the media with hard information and statistics- we most certainly can't trust the average person walking down the street.........

What I keep telling myself is- most people in here are fairly intelligent. But for every intelligent person out there- there is the equal possibility that there is an idiot around the next corner.......

samson09

tallaght01 wrote: »

You're confusing dealing with a pandemic and preventing as pandemic. Vaccinating a small village in Mexico would have prevented this pandemic.

The sample size is worldwide. It's nothing to do with Ireland.

I don't remember the GBS figure off hand for the seasonal flu vaccine. But it's 1 in every few thousand. This vaccine is pretty much identical to it, so the rates are likely to be very similar. It's mostly non life threatening, and I reckon most of those 25 people wouldn't have died from it nowadays. They may not have even made it to ICU. I don't think I've ever seen a GBS death.

Taking a safe vaccine that I take every year V a virus with a 1 in 1000 death rate and a 1 in 200 hospitalisation rate (with 30-50% of those hospitalised ending up in ICU), I'd go with the vaccine.

Do they vaccines that are being tested at the moment contain adjuvants? (ie squalene)

Dr Galen

samson09 wrote: »

Do they vaccines that are being tested at the moment contain adjuvants? (ie squalene)

Baxter's candidate avian flu vaccine is derived from the H5N1 strain A/Vietnam/1203/2004. Its antigen composition and structure are identical to the actual virus circulating in nature without the need to enhance an immune response by including adjuvants, additives that may cause side effects.

thats taken directly from the Baxter website btw

Dr Galen

DEERFIELD, Ill., August 5, 2009 — Baxter International Inc. (NYSE: BAX) today announced that it completed production of its first commercial batches of CELVAPAN A/H1N1 pandemic vaccine in late July and is discussing plans for distribution with national health authorities, subject to obtaining appropriate authorizations. CELVAPAN, the brand name for the company's A/H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccine, is made using Baxter's proprietary Vero cell culture technology.

Baxter plans to deliver initial quantities of CELVAPAN to national public health authorities that have pandemic agreements with the company. These health authorities placed orders for the vaccine following the World Health Organization's (WHO) elevation of the pandemic alert level to phase 6 and declaration of a pandemic.

Baxter's proprietary Vero cell production technology is meeting the company's expectations to rapidly produce a vaccine in response to a pandemic. CELVAPAN was developed and commercially produced using this process within 12 weeks of receiving the A/H1N1 virus strain, which represents an innovation in vaccine production.

“We are pleased with our company's ability to meet its expected timelines in developing and producing CELVAPAN,” said Joy Amundson, corporate vice president and president of Baxter BioScience. “This is an encouraging validation of our science, our Vero cell vaccine technology and the teamwork at Baxter in meeting this important milestone to help address an urgent public health issue.”

Baxter is collaborating with regulatory authorities to ensure the company is in accordance with all requirements needed to support approval and use of CELVAPAN. “To make CELVAPAN A/H1N1 vaccine, we applied the same development, qualification and manufacturing processes used in gaining European Medicines Agency (EMEA) licensure of a mock-up pandemic vaccine,” said Hartmut J. Ehrlich, M.D., vice president of global research and development for Baxter BioScience. “The mock-up vaccine made with a different pandemic strain was tested in five clinical trials worldwide in more than 1,300 people. In addition, more than 3,500 people have been vaccinated during an ongoing phase III study.”

Confirmatory clinical trials to evaluate safety and immunogenicity of CELVAPAN A/H1N1 in adults, the elderly and children are scheduled to begin in August. Baxter has initiated its license application for CELVAPAN A/H1N1 based on the EMEA published guidelines for pandemic vaccine marketing authorization and will supplement its application post-approval with the appropriate safety and immunogenicity data from the confirmatory clinical trials. Once national vaccination programs are initiated, Baxter will also conduct a large-scale observational study in people receiving CELVAPAN. In all countries, decisions to administer the vaccine will be determined by local public health authorities.

ABOUT BAXTER'S PANDEMIC VACCINE DEVELOPMENT

Baxter received the A/H1N1 strain for testing and evaluation from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (a WHO Collaborating Center) in early May. The company then undertook pre-production testing and evaluation of the virus strain to assess its growth characteristics and ability to work in the company's proprietary Vero cell culture. Based on the virus' ability to grow in Vero cell culture, Baxter initiated commercial production on June 3, 2009. Bulk CELVAPAN vaccine is produced at its large-scale commercial facility in Bohumil, Czech Republic, and is sent to Vienna, Austria for the final formulation, fill and finish before distribution.

Mock-up licensure is a regulatory pathway for pandemic vaccines that was created by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) in 2004. This pathway allows for the development, evaluation and testing of a company's vaccine production capabilities using an available influenza strain that has the potential to cause a pandemic. Once a pandemic is declared and the influenza virus strain causing the pandemic is identified, the mock-up licensure allows for fast track approval of a pandemic vaccine containing the actual pandemic strain. Other countries may choose to evaluate the company's EMEA submission and use that information as the basis for their national health authority's authorization for use of the vaccine.

As is this for anyone interested.

Seems like they have gone through all necessary steps according to the European Medicines Agency.

samson09

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

Baxter's candidate avian flu vaccine is derived from the H5N1 strain A/Vietnam/1203/2004. Its antigen composition and structure are identical to the actual virus circulating in nature without the need to enhance an immune response by including adjuvants, additives that may cause side effects.

But this is a different vaccine. Adjuvants may be used so that less virus material is needed per vaccine, therefore more vaccines can be available for the public. As far as I know, adjuvants such as squalene will be used in some of the vaccines for the H1N1 virus. What bothers me is that none of the testing thats going on at the moment include vaccines that contain squalene. I'd actually like to be proven wrong on this.

sam34

samson09 wrote: »

But this is a different vaccine. Adjuvants may be used so that less virus material is needed per vaccine, therefore more vaccines can be available for the public. As far as I know, adjuvants such as squalene will be used in some of the vaccines for the H1N1 virus. What bothers me is that none of the testing thats going on at the moment include vaccines that contain squalene. I'd actually like to be proven wrong on this.

can you provide a reliable source for this please?

Dr Galen

well i just googled it and started to find answers. i would suggest that you could do the same, or would that end up invalidating your argument?

as you can see, I posted two pieces from the Baxter site. One mentioning the non-use of adjuvents and one detailing the process used to make the H1N1 vaccine. If you read through them again, you will see that they are the same in all ways apart from the virus strain used. They use the same process to make the vaccine, and just substitute the virus bit.

Dr Galen

just for clarity sake I've posted the other article relating to Baxter producing said "mock-up" vaccine

Baxter International Inc. (NYSE: BAX) today announced that the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) has issued a positive opinion for the marketing authorization of CELVAPAN, the first cell culture-based H5N1 (avian flu) pandemic vaccine, in the European Union.

The positive opinion precedes the licensure of the "mock-up" vaccine, which allows CELVAPAN to be used if the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declares a pandemic. The positive opinion was based on results from a comprehensive clinical development program, including a Phase III clinical trial that demonstrated vaccines for two different H5N1 virus strains were well tolerated and generated a functional immune response.

"We are very pleased to receive the EMEA's positive opinion for CELVAPAN," said Hartmut Ehrlich, M.D., vice president, BioScience global research and development. "This is another step towards our goal of supplying a safe and effective vaccine to protect the population against a possible influenza pandemic."

A "mock up" vaccine is identical to the future pandemic vaccine in composition and manufacturing; however, since the actual pandemic strain is not known, the vaccine contains another influenza strain not yet exposed to the general population. Once a pandemic is declared, this licensure allows for a fast track approval of the vaccine containing the actual pandemic strain.

CELVAPAN is made using Baxter's proprietary Vero cell technology, which offers advantages against conventional egg-based vaccine technology. Baxter's Vero cell manufacturing process is more rapid due to its ability to use the "native" virus that does not need to be modified in order to grow in chicken eggs. The shorter time for vaccine production is critical in accelerating vaccine supply in response to an influenza pandemic.

CELVAPAN is produced in Bohumil, Czech Republic, at one of the largest cell culture vaccine production facilities in the world. Vero cell technology uses a well-established continuous mammalian cell line to produce the pandemic vaccine.

Baxter's candidate avian flu vaccine is derived from the H5N1 strain A/Vietnam/1203/2004. Its antigen composition and structure are identical to the actual virus circulating in nature. This vaccine formulation alleviates the need to enhance the immune response by including adjuvants (additives) that may cause side effects. In the Phase III study, CELVAPAN induced an immune response that is similar to the body's defense against a natural influenza virus infection.

Phase III Clinical Trial Results

The purpose of the randomized Phase III study was to evaluate safety and immune responses to 7.5 µg of the Vietnam strain vaccine in two age groups (adults 18-59 and elderly, i.e., older than 60). The antibody persistence and immune response to a booster with either the same or a different strain was also measured. The study also investigated the ability of the vaccine to induce cross-immunity against divergent H5N1 strains.

Overall, the vaccine was well tolerated after the first and second vaccination as well as after the booster, with a safety profile similar to currently licensed seasonal influenza vaccines. The most common side effects were injection site pain and headache, fatigue or malaise.

A positive immune response was induced even after only one immunization as determined by measurement of functional antibodies using a microneutralization assay (50.7 percent in the adult group; 54.4 percent in the elderly group). Following the second immunization, 73 percent of subjects in the adult and 74 percent in the elderly age group demonstrated seroneutralizing levels of antibody, meaning the vaccine was found to be at least equally immunogenic in the elderly as in the adult age group. A six-month booster vaccination with either A/Vietnam/1203/2004 or A/Indonesia/05/2005 strain vaccines induced a substantial booster response. A booster vaccination using a different strain resulted in high levels of antibodies against the initial and the booster strain, which is indicative of cross-protective immunological memory.

Last June, The New England Journal of Medicine published data demonstrating CELVAPAN met Phase I/II trial endpoints for safety and immunogenicity (generating a functional immune response). This was the first peer-reviewed publication of study results for CELVAPAN, the first cell culture-derived avian influenza vaccine to undergo clinical evaluation.

About Pandemic Flu

A pandemic is a global disease outbreak caused by an agent for which there is little or no immunity in the human population and which can spread easily from person-to-person worldwide causing serious illness and death. Most cases of avian flu infection in humans have so far resulted from direct or close contact with infected poultry (e.g., domesticated chicken, ducks, and turkeys) or surfaces possibly contaminated from feces of infected birds. Avian influenza infection follows an unusually aggressive clinical course, with rapid deterioration and a high fatality rate.

About Baxter

Baxter International Inc. develops, manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious diseases, kidney disease, trauma, and other chronic and acute medical conditions. As a global, diversified healthcare company, Baxter applies a unique combination of expertise in medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that advance patient care worldwide.

samson09

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

well i just googled it and started to find answers. i would suggest that you could do the same, or would that end up invalidating your argument?

as you can see, I posted two pieces from the Baxter site. One mentioning the non-use of adjuvents and one detailing the process used to make the H1N1 vaccine. If you read through them again, you will see that they are the same in all ways apart from the virus strain used. They use the same process to make the vaccine, and just substitute the virus bit.

Dude, I'm not looking for an argument. I'm just asking questions. I know tallaght is involved in the trials in Australia and thought that maybe he might know more about this.

I'm well aware of how Google works, thanks.

The first piece of info you posted is about bird flu. There was not such a rush to get those vaccines out, so adjuvants may not have been necessary.
The second piece you posted is about the production process. I'm asking abou the use of adjuvants.

Dr Galen

samson09 wrote: »

Dude, I'm not looking for an argument. I'm just asking questions. I know tallaght is involved in the trials in Australia and thought that maybe he might know more about this.

neither am i. when i use the term argument here i mean in the debate styley usage of the word. at all times I try and keep civil with people, and that includes people like yourself, who, most of the time I don't agree with. You won't get me being an arse with you dude once you offer that courtesy back. If I ever do, you have my public permission to PM and tell me I am

I'm well aware of how Google works, thanks.

Well have a look and see what you find. tbh I'd be interested in what is out there too. I'm no fan of lashing untested, untried or dodgey stuff into my body. So if you find real evidence, I'd like to know.

The first piece of info you posted is about bird flu. There was not such a rush to get those vaccines out, so adjuvants may not have been necessary.
The second piece you posted is about the production process. I'm asking abou the use of adjuvants.

Ok maybe I haven't posted or explained in the right way. This is my reading of the evidence as published both on the Bayer site, various medical news sites and also the New England Journal of Medicine.

1) Last year Bayer made a mock pandemic flu vaccine. This was as a response to the avian flu outbreak and the possibility of a global flu pandemic. They used a specific process to do this. They used a variant of the avian flu H5N1 to create said vaccine. They submitted this work to EMEA.
The process they use allows them to substitute the virus part of the vaccine out for whatever strain is causing the outbreak/pandemic of the time. Thus, there is a pretty much ready to go vaccine availible in the lab, once the flu strain is identified. In this case, they take the swine flu strain H1N1 and drop it into the chain. Tada vaccine made and on to the testing.

2) They did this once the swine flu took hold and looked to be heading towards pandemic level

3) This is the product that they are now putting out there

samson09

sam34 wrote: »

can you provide a reliable source for this please?

I'm just trying to figure out what companies are tesing vaccines with adjuvants and which arent. I know that at least Novartis and Sanofi Pasteur are doing this (just proved myself wrong on that one) but I'd like to know who else is doing this. I'd also like to find out if any long term studies have been done on the use of these adjuvants, as they apparently cause auto immune disorders. I'm aware of the short term testing that has been done by GSK and other companies, but I personally believe that short term studies are not enough.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aH.RhHvr96A8

Dr Galen

it still appears to me that the Bayer vaccine doesn't contain an adjuvent

this is from the EMEA site, taken directly from the info on the drug

What CELVAPAN contains Active substance:

Whole virion influenza vaccine, inactivated, containing antigen of pandemic strain*: A/Vietnam/1203/2004 (H5N1) 7.5 micrograms** per 0.5 ml dose * propagated in Vero cells (continuous cell line of mammalian origin)** haemagglutinin

The other ingredients are: trometamol, sodium chloride, water for injections, polysorbate 80.

samson09

WHO's advisory panel (SAGE) has recommended that oil in water adjuvants should be used in the vaccines.

“SAGE recommended that promoting production and use of vaccines such as those that are formulated with oil-in-water adjuvants and live attenuated influenza vaccines was important,” says the WHO pandemic briefing note.
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_vaccine_20090713/en/index.html

However, this is in spite of the fact that clinical studies published by Baxter’s own scientific team that patented the H1N1 vaccine demonstrate that such adjuvants are, at best, useless.

In June 2008, Baxter’s Austrian-based scientists Ehrlich, Kistner and Barret published a clinical trial in the New England Journal of Medicine (Previous Volume 358:2573-2584 June 12, 2008 Number 24) on the safety of an H5N1 whole-virus vaccine, in which they themselves go on record saying that the use of adjuvants did not improve the antibody response.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/358/24/2573


This, by itself, does not make any sense. To put it mildly, I'm concerned.

whatawaster

Is there any indication as to when Ireland will start getting vaccines? I know we have ordered 6 million or whatever. I've read that Britain only expects to be able to vaccinate half its population this year. Is this simply because of their large population or is it likely to be the same here?
Or, does simply nobody know at this stage?

dungeon

What's the latest on the expected date for vaccines?

dungeon

Here in Ireland, I mean. Will there be a priority for children before adults or will families receive the vaccine together?

Bicycle

There was a well balanced article in last weekend's independent about the flu. They suggest that 7.5 million vaccinations are ordered, vaccinations will not take place until testing is complete and satisfactory and that there will be priorities in vaccinations.

Top rung will be the medics and health services and essential services, followed by those with the most acute illnesses and pregnant women, followed by those with less acute illness but still at risk, followed by the under 5s, followed by those under 25 followed by the elderly followed by the rest of us who don't fit in to any of those categories.... And it won't be a forced vaccination programme.

Obviously those who have had the virus won't need the vaccine as they will already have immunity or expected immunity. And one assumes then, that they will be looking for herd immunity.

Again, a health warning on this as I'm just a concerned Mum reporting on what I've read.... And following this thread for a while, finding it interesting and informative.

samson09

edited due to sensationalism and scaremongering.

plus, newspapers are not considered reliable scientific sources. if you want to post that link, do so elsewhere.

Sam34

whatawaster

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/Swine_flu/article6799297.ece

One in three nurses say they will not be immunised against swine flu, despite being offered the vaccine as a priority to protect patients.
Concerns about the vaccine’s safety and a perception that the infection is mild are among reasons that NHS staff gave for refusing to have the jab, a survey of nearly 1,500 staff found.
Frontline health and social care workers will be offered the jab from October, along with patients in at-risk groups — such as those with diabetes, asthma or pregnant women.
In the online survey for Nursing Times magazine, 30 per cent of nurses said that they would not get immunised when the vaccine for H1N1 became available; 37 per cent said they would. Thirty-three per cent were undecided.
Of those who said that they would not be vaccinated, 60 per cent cited concern about the safety of the vaccine as the main reason.
Thirty-one per cent said they did not consider the risks to their health from swine flu to be great enough, and 9 per cent did not think they would be able to take time out of work to visit their GP to be immunised.
Two possible vaccines are being tested in trials run by the University of Leicester and the Health Protection Agency to assess immunity levels and identify side-effects.
A decision on licensing is expected at the end of September, with nearly 55 million doses expected to be delivered to Britain by the end of the year.
David Salisbury, the Department of Health’s director of immunisation, said it was unfortunate that nurses could “knowingly leave themselves at risk” of contracting the illness.
“They have a duty to themselves, they are at risk. They have a duty to their patients not to infect their patients and they have a duty to their families. I think you solve those responsibilities by being vaccinated,” he said.
He added: “The evidence that we’ve had is sufficient to persuade the regulators that these are vaccines that will be licensed.”
Professor Salisbury’s comments follow a warning from Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer for England, that swine flu could leave up to 12 per cent of the NHS workforce on sick leave at any one time.
Low vaccination rates among NHS staff have previously been blamed for causing disruption to services and illness among patients during typical winter flu seasons.
Transmission by staff of contagious viruses was blamed for some hospital outbreaks of flu last winter, when fewer than one in seven NHS staff received the annual flu vaccine, while shortages of workers also put pressure on accident and emergency departments.
Reported cases of swine flu this summer have already surpassed the levels typically seen during a winter flu season, and the figures are expected to surge in the coming months.
George Kassianos, the immunisation spokesman for the Royal College of GPs, said: “More than any other year, this year it is extremely improtant that people get vaccinated against flu. It is very important that nurses, doctors and healthcare workers do not get influenza themselves and have to go off sick, and also that we do not give it to our patients.
“We are lucky that we will have enough doses of this vaccine in Britain, and we as health professionals need to put it in our own arms first to better protect our patients.”
Dr Kassianos added that it was understandable that people were unsure about having a new vaccine, “but its ingredients and the way it's being manufactured are almost exactly the same as the annual flu vaccine. I see no reason why this vaccine should be any different to the flu vaccines of the past. People’s confidence should rise as the programme gets under way.”

Should it not be a condition of them coming to work in the hospital that they are fully vaccinated when a vaccine is available? Does it not put the many sick and vulnerable people in a hospital at even greater risk, let alone the staff themselves?

DrIndy

hospital staff have needle phobias too.

I think this is a part of it.

nesf

Would anyone else agree that it's a rather large assumption to be saying that the second swine flu victim had no underlying medical issues when there was no post mortem carried out (I'm not suggesting that there should have been).

The_Conductor

nesf wrote: »

Would anyone else agree that it's a rather large assumption to be saying that the second swine flu victim had no underlying medical issues when there was no post mortem carried out (I'm not suggesting that there should have been).

There was a post mortem carried out this afternoon. The results have not been released to the public domain, and most probably won't be for some time (until other information relevant to the case has been anonymised as more cases enter the stats.

tallaght01

The question is no that relevant. About 20% of deaths are in people with no underlying health probs. About 2/3 deaths globally (probably more in developed countries) from swine flu are in people with underlying health probs.

Ireland will be similar, unless the vaccine has a decent uptake.

Regarding, the study on nurses and vaccination....that's what lots of countries have been finding. I'd be amazed if even more than 20% of the nurses in that study knew a lot about swine flu. Most don't work with it.

I've been in hospital the last week, on a cardiac ward. I was talking to 2 of the nurses there about working on pandemic planning. They said I must find it very frustrating, as it's "just the flu".

Health professionals read the media too. And unfortunately, the influence of media madness is very far reaching. Much more so that we'd like to admit, I reckon.