Safety is cited as concern - I wonder to what extent there may also have been a concern that this "pandemic" like bird flu, SARS, BSE et al. may not turn out to be as bad as CDC and WHo anticipated.

Published 26 August 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b3461
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b3461

News

Opposition to swine flu vaccine seems to be growing worldwide

As governments gear up to launch national vaccination programmes against swine flu, questions are beginning to emerge about how many people will be prepared to take up the offer of the vaccine.

A survey published online this week in the BMJ found that just over half of 8500 healthcare workers in Hong Kong said they would not be vaccinated against swine flu because of fears of side effects and doubts about the vaccine’s effectiveness (BMJ 2009;339:b3391, doi:10.1136/bmj.b3391).

Evidence from 11 focus groups conducted in Canada before the current pandemic also indicates that parents and healthcare workers may refuse to be vaccinated or to vaccinate their children if they believe that the risks outweigh the benefits (Emerging Health Threats Journal 2009;2:e8, www.eht-forum.org/ehtj/journal/v2/pdf/ehtj09008a.pdf). And a survey by Israel’s ministry of health similarly found that at least 25% of the population is not willing to be vaccinated against . . .

I can't imagine that this vaccine will be any worse in terms of side effects than any other flu vaccine that is commonly used. I don't think safety is a big issue, though I might have some concerns about efficacy especially as it is a vaccine that was rushed to be produced.

Your imagination aside - the swine flu vaccination of the 60's was associated with unexpected reported side effects. Accurate or not, and looking back does not find the data compelling either way, it's clear that the decision for mass vaccination was premature and ultimately unnecessary.

Its been overhyped.

In june-july some "expert" here, in belgium, started yelling about how bad the flu was etc and we had to vaccinate everyone and the elder etc... because a lot of people would die...

Now he is saying that the younger people will be affected more because the older ones allready have antibodies against it... and that less people will die because this flu.
But in general he also said that more people will be sick.

This prof. made a real fool out of himself.

He caused some panic for no reason and still there is panic and a lot of "rules" to follow to stop the flu...

Me , I do not get it: every year there is a flu and this flu does not seem to be bad its seems that this flu is even not as bad as the normal flu...

To me it seems that here the media jumped on it because it was "holidayseason" and they hadnt any other topic to write about.
Now that the new schoolyear start (and even since half august) the newspapers and tvjournals dont say a word about it anymore.. very strange.




And about the vaccins: I have read that a lot of small children are getting a lot of side-effects going from being very sich to having horrible nightmares and being upset, unrest.

It may well hyave been overhyped. there is no doubt that bird flu, SARs, BSE-MadCow and the swine flu from the 60's were clearly overhyped.

Of course you meant antibodies and Belgium has a terrible record here. In fact, parents have been jailed in Belgium for faling to vaccinate their kids.[Me , I do not get it: every year there is a flu and this flu does not seem to be bad its seems that this flu is even not as bad as the normal flu...

yeah, antibodies indeed.

I fixed it.


And yeah, its overhyped now. I do not know about the 60's , since I wasnt even born then



Yeah, but those people you refer to are people that refused every vaccin (not just a flu vaccin or sometimes else thats not really needed).

We are talking about people that refused EVERY vaccin and some of those vaccins are really needed for infants, baby's and 1 is forced (= legaly obligatory)
However legaly there is only 1 vaccin that is forced : poliomyelitis vaccin, you have to do this, if you do not do this you can indeed be send to jail (or rather then going to jail: lose control over your childern).

In general people that go to jail arent sent to jail because of refusing a vaccin, but its a mixture of several things and in general in comes to this: bad parenting.

From the CDC:


Let the news media run with a story that has the word "pandemic" in it, and they'll hype it all out of proportion.

Again, from the CDC:



Considering that "an annual average of 41,400 (95% confidence interval: 27,100, 55,700) deaths [are attributable] to influenza [in the US] over the period [of] 1979–2001" (ref), we should be more concerned with controlling "regular" flu, and less concerned about H1N1...

I think the problem here is one of governments and health organizations watching their back. The WHO has suggested that much like any newer flu strain, the H1N1 has the potential to become more dangerous. They have not suggested that the H1N1 is currently a severe threat. It is a pandemic, which, as pointed out already, is based on the spread geographically. However, let us not forget that the Spanish flu of 1918 started off much the same way as H1N1. In the spring, the Spanish flu was comparatively mild. When it "returned" in the fall, the flu had become more virulent and over the course of the next 1.5 years killed more than 30 million people. If the WHO or CDC fails to recognize a potential problem and seek means of preventing such a problem, who will be blamed if the flu does become a serious threat? If millions of lives were lost, who would be blamed, what would the ramifications be? Personally, I do think the media has overhyped the new flu
and used scare tactics on the masses, but on the flip side what is the problem with being prepared? Isn't it part of our role as scientists not only to inform the public, but also to identify scientific problems?

I believe the CDC, WHO, and other such organizations *are* behaving responsibly by declaring an H1N1 pandemic -- for that is, in fact, what it is. And I agree that these organizations are charged with detecting potential threats, and preparing to deal with them.

However, the public's understanding of what a pandemic is and why one is declared is different from that of the scientists and medical personnel at these organizations. One would expect the press to educate the public accurately on such things, but education does not sell papers -- hype does. One would likely further expect reporters to educate themselves on these things so as to report the stories accurately, but would be disappointed.

The bigger problem is that the public assumes that such due dilligence *has* been done by the media, when in fact it hasn't.

Techncially you're correct, homebrew. However these organizations know quite well the resultant hysterical, overhyped news stories that will follow so they do own the responsuibility. Further, they clearly benefit both with organizational funding and with their leadership getting face time on the news and with political leaders. When the next news story displaces the "pandemic" with nothing significant having happened - the public is no more educated but certainly more cynical about the organizations as well as their next prediction.

But let me ask you guys - would you take the vaccination? mI would/will not.

To pito - the parents jailed refused to vaccinate their kids for polio - that was their only "crime" and they were incarcerated.

I'll go you one better George. The health care/pandemic pimps are out for reputation and gov money - no more no less. If WHO and CDC could establish farting as pandemic, the news media would go bonkers seeing the end of the world for H2S poisoning, gov and UN funds would flow, pedantic worried faces would appear on network news in US, BBC and NPR and they'd all walk away the richer when a story broke about Madonna's fake breasts throwing farting to section E12 in the NY times.

You're ignoring one fact -- it *is* a pandemic. They must declare it, for the declaration triggers certain surveillance protocols and other means by which data is gathered to assess its significance as a threat and formulate methods to respond. In this regard, it's no different than the weather service issuing a tornado warning.

How the media reports it is not the concern of such organizations, they have a different job to do.

And they defined pandemic and let the media run wild with it. I don't buy for a second that they have no responsibility to ensure it's reported appropriately. They are only too eager to get in front of the camera.

On the other hand, I'm sure we've all heard of situations where a reasoned argument has been put up by an authority, only to have it cut to shreds and misrepresented by the media, who are often (always?) more interested in sensationalism and sales than accuracy.

It is what it is. Imagine what would happen to WHO/ CDC etc if swine flu did come out as a dangerous Spanish flu-type pandemic and they hadn't called it? They would all be (rightly) crucified. As it turns out, swine flu looks like it's a fairly mild flu that has nasty outcomes in a small section of the population.

Poor them - damned if they do and damned if they don't. Fact is - they've blown it for the last 4 decades - highlighting Bird flu, SARS, nvCJD and the original swine flu and missing AIDs. Worse - you'll find no review from these folks that attempts to understand why the former group did not meet projections.

eberthella -- you're the director of WHO or CDC (take your pick). You know there is a disease that has reached the level of a pandemic outbreak by the formal definition. What do you do?

I see you've managed very little in your career.

A leader doesn't go from predictable crisis to predictable crisis - managing each as a separate phenomenon - facing the same fait accompli, being held hostage to terms like "pandemic" that are always overblown by the press and that have lost significance to much of the public. I'd have established programs with the objectives:

1) better understand the previous failures of prediction - in a technical sense. Science is knowable and there's a reason, for example, why my dire predictions of H1N5 mutation did not happen (so far) and why the last swine flu predictions were so poor. Some relevant work has been published and even in CDC's emerging Disease journal by folks at Johns Hopkins, but nothing from or funded by WHO or CDC.

2) change information and terms with the objective of establishing the right public message based on the risk shown by data available at that time. The bird and swine flu announcements hyped by the press produced no functional change in citizen behaviours or practices. Tho it certainly did produce concern for increased CDC funding and that was probably part of the aim - for good (to get vaccine production started) and not so good (to grow my org).

If walked in into the office today and faced such a situation, the focus would be on the technical aspects of what we know, what milestones we're looking for that indicate increased risk and the scenarios projected. As for the press, I'd describe that we have another flu outbreak that appears to be more aggressive and has been reported from other countries as well and say what citizens can do at this time - as in nothing. I'd not use "pandemic" or other emotional terms i know will be misused by the press. to that point, I'd announce before the next crisis that the agency will not be using terms that can be overblown by the press.

That shows how very little you know about me. I'll stack my twenty-year career against yours and we'll see who comes out on top...



Ridiculous. Declaring a pandemic has nothing to do with predictions. The spread of a disease has either reached a pandemic level, or it hasn't.



Ridiculously Orwellian. You would change the definition of a pandemic based on the public's reaction to the word, and that definition would fluctuate over time based on risk? There is no risk metric or emotional quotient for a pandemic, it is a measure of how widespread a disease has become, and has nothing to do with how detrimental it is to human health.

Basically you're saying your actions in the face of a pandemic would be dictated by your assessment of how the press would report it and how the public would react to that reporting. Boy, am I glad you're not in charge of any public health organization...

No pandemic here in bioforum but just a tsunami ...whew...eberthella, you just won't stop eh, unless you meet someone your own size but definitely better..so my bet's on HomeBrew.....

anyways, my substanceless two cents....

Its classification as a pandemic is a regulatory policy based on criteria the WHO have established (and they like to have all these guidelines) i.e. there’s person to person transmission and it has crossed borders and barriers so it’s a pandemic. Actually they were even criticised for being too slow in upgrading its status bec of the political ramifications- they were concerned and rightly so for the wide spread fear and panic that can result. And changing the label is neither here nor there especially if we are bracing for a second wave this fall. With this classification comes heightened awareness and more pressure on our respective governments to institute action plans and enact health measures which would contain the virus. Besides, in the initial press realease by the WHO they pretty much defined the criteria and why it was being classified as a pandemic and what it is not. It was up to our govts’ health agencies and professionals to give the right information to the public.

As stated by one of our MPs “to be prudent, we must be prepared for the worst-case scenario”and I think this pretty much sums up succinctly the position of WHO and the government health agencies. Perhaps we don’t need to see this as a “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” situation but more like a twisted Pascal’s Wager : if we don’t get a second more deadly wave (and a mutated more virulent strain), their strategy worked and crisis is averted and everyone could have a collective sigh of relief. But if we do get hit, then hopefully, the vaccine and all the other measures in place will work out as planned.

The issue I’m more cynical about is that this massive vaccination campaign translates to a billion dollar boon for Big Pharma- and for these flu vaccines- there are about 5 or 6 of them. Here in Canada, it’s only Glaxo and this campaign alone costs us 400 M big ones. It’s also interesting to know that during epidemic/pandemic crises, they have lawsuit immunity (at least in the States and most probably here as well). Because of the fast-tracking of this vaccine, if they start cutting corners and doing something unethical because of the time crunch, they are still not liable unless they “willfully” released a defective or ineffective product. Then this could be worrisome...but we have assurances that it's the same technology that has always been working and the only thing new is the strain of virus so we have to trust them on that....

I think eberthella is not in fact a person, but an insult-generator.

I understand you have nothing to offer swanny either technically or conceptually, and that doesn't stop you. Keep up the simple minded insults - it's entertaining.

No casandra - "pandemic" is not regulatory policy in any regard. It is a technical definition of epidemiologists. Apparently not you so make it 1 cent worth - the term refers to an epidemic in human populations across a wide geographic area - person-to-person transmission has nothing to do with it. Neither term - pandemic or epidemic - has a quantitative definition, so SARS, nvCJD, H!N5 were all fairly called pandemics, tho case numbers of some are so small that logic protests. The CDC and WHO have not criticized - in the last 20 years - tho your point has validity re. AIDs. Even there, the political administration was primary target. And even if they were - they screwed up in each of the previous solemn projections of doom - projections that they themselves offered or those they allowed to be blown up by the media.

Of course it is in the lexicon with definition at CDC and WHO and the details of definition are lost in news reports. It doesn't have to be in the public policy vocabulary.

Who cares what one of your MP's offered? If i weren't such a gentleman, I'd offer a quote from Tennessee Williams.

Please explain your grudge against your "big pharma." I'm not sure who would supply vaccines but big pharma and without that lawsuit immunity - they wouldn't develop vaccines. If CDC and WHO were better scientific org's, we'd not develop so many vaccines - but that's my bias. Back to the 400 million - that's not an unusual cost in the pharma world, but what do you think would be an appropriate cost? Please justify.


Oh - and for the sensitive homebrew, allow me the elaborate.
You've obviously never managed anything in a large organizational sense. Wringing ones hands in anticipation of another hard decision is hardly the mark of a good manager. Again evidenced in your inability to comprehend the need to translate scientific terminology to public policy. My experience is in pharma managing global groups - yours?
Either I was obscure or you obtuse - the "predictions" referred to - for example that H1N5 would mutate to allow facile person-to person transmission. The Hopkins publication offered a technical models that offered why swine flu early in this century did and by which H1N5 would not. I'm too many years from the lab and literature to dissect the wrk and its concept - but so far the general comment to H1N5 has been correct. Assume you're unaware of the work. Here's a link for you: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/index.htm

Sorry for your hurt feelings - but have a nice day.

...hmmm...here we go again......


For someone who’s got all this knowledge and experience in “pharma managing global groups” (I guess we’ll just have to take your word for it), you still don’t get it, don’t you, eberthella? You’ve no right to run around this board demeaning members serially and offering mostly insults and ad hominem. And I don’t freakin care if you’re the master of the universe. If humility is too much to ask for considering that in your delusion you think you’re all “that”, then how about a modicum of civility? If you think you’re so above us, then what are you doing here? You can go to other forums full of arrogant like-minded individuals who wipe each other other out for pure sports but fortunately (and unfortunately for you) this is not that kind of place.

Honestly, I for one am interested to hear what you have to say but if I have to wade through all your nasty crap first before I can get a tiny nugget of insight, then it’s no thanks for me. So far what I’ve learned from you is how to polish my claws and sharpen my fangs and it’s not only getting to be tiresome but I don’t want to end up being like you. If you persist with this attitude, you’re giving yourself more rope to hang yourself with. So far, bioforum and the moderators and the members you've insulted have been very patient but you’re testing that limit so don't push your luck.

And oh, that WHO classification of a pandemic, I don’t care who defined it..but what we have now is a pandemic or are you still refuting this? If it’s the label that gives you grief, then too bad that you’re not in a position to change or improve anything so get over it.

I quoted this MP because that’s precisely their justification for whatever move they’re doing right now. If you have a problem with that then it’s too bad that you’re not in legislation so get over that one too. With the 400 million, that’s how much Canada is coughing up..how much is your bill and the EU’s…it’s practically the global market and it would be a constant yearly supply from now on, and oh, sure they’re doing this for purely altruistic reasons. If we have the resources, I actually don’t give a darn if it will cost us 400 billion as long as it will save lives and help people but it’s a pretty hefty windfall for Big Pharma which I’m pretty sure did not lobby for this campaign nor influence the media in playing on the fear of the public. And finally, please spare us your heartfelt creative apologies.

Btw, probably your only redeeming feature (at least for me) is that you read Tennessee Williams so I dare you to post that quote......

Nice dodge. None of this has anything to do with whether or not you would announce a pandemic if faced with one as defined by currently accepted definintions while head of WHO or CDC.

As to my leadership experience, all you've done is "obiviously" stick your foot in your mouth again. For about ten years, I was in direct charge of a group of 250 people, and directly responsible for the health and well-being of about 2,500 more. I was recognized many times with high honors for my leadership abilities and skills, and was for many years an instructor in leadership and management.

You guys can argue about the size of your (imaginary or otherwise) groups - surrogate for whatever you may or may not have elsewhere. I do wonder at a moderator feeling it so necessary to boast his credentials and ignore the central discussion.

The issue I hoped to raise was that the health care profession itself would in large part refuse the vaccine. The immediate issue of concern stated was safety - and I had added my belief that safety and necessity were the factors.

How many here would take the vaccine if it were available tomorrow?

No boast, just facts -- when attacked directly, I respond.. Sorry to disappoint you, George.

Finally…and you’re one to talk George. I wonder what you’d do and how you’d react if it’s your turn to be attacked by eberthella, unnecessarily and initially unprovoked like he did to me, Homebrew and all the others (with the list still growing). I don’t see you being a martyr and turning the other cheek or perhaps you think that what he did (and will do) is totally justified? This thread was right on track until he started his MO (try to read his posts in the other threads) and see how now it’s been disrupted.

I’m not saying that we should all be a one big happy family but couldn’t we at least be more civil and try to get along like in any other community..…actually, for the most part we do, but someone like him comes along so should he be allowed to run roughshod over anyone he targets and then has the nerve to accuse that person of being sensitive for showing the instinctive response of defending himself? So what do you think and what would you do if it were you? And please don't tell us that you would ignore the insults or be logical/unemotional about them or you'd just stick to the initial discussion etc. cos I might be tempted to put this to the test ...sorry, just teasing you...it's much better than whining about this whole thing....

Anyways, back to your OP, the CDC has already released the initial safety results- i.e. two weeks after vaccination and side effects are the usual- redness, swelling, soreness etc. For long term, who the heck knows but I guess they’re gonna predict based on the past record of the other seasonal flu vaccines. We have a greater concern up here bec we’re gonna get an adjuvanted one….I read somewhere that it's squalene-based…I don't know much about it but the people responsible always assures us that it's proven technology so we shouldn't worry so much about it...….but people are wary and some parents are torn up about it. It would be a wide-scale field trial but how would you think the parents would feel if they decide not to vaccinate and then their child gets infected? And they’ve already started the media campaign….so now it's a wait and see.....

Probably wouldn't bother for myself, but as one of my daughters has a propensity to throw febrile convulsions with viral infections, I'd consider it, if only to reduce the risk to her (we're over the spectacle (?) of her fitting in the middle of the night).

I don't think swine flu is severe enough or sufficiently deadly to demand vaccination; most (all??) of the deaths have been in immunocompromised people, yes? As you can guess, it's not really been very high on my personal list of concerns... my bad.

I'm back children, rejoice!
I feel like I'm playing a game of liar's poker with homebrew - no way to call his bluff. I do enjoy seeing that this "moderator" functions in such a pompous manner tho looking at other strings, I don't see to many examples of such behaviour. Also, interesting he measures his alleged importance by the size of his group - after the 1st hundred or so, most experienced managers see it in the responsibility and objective. I'll offer that my groups haven't numbered over 200 - so homebrew's alleged egotism has me numerically. It still surprises me that such an important(!!) manager is so challenged to translate technical terms are translated to public policy.

Casandra do try to stay on subject and please understand safety here. The "safety determination" was established in context of perceived urgency of the situation and is a risk assessment that looks at risk/benefit - it is not an absolute and would never pass FDA considerations if it were offered out of this context.

I'm with sad swanny this time - I'd not take the vaccine.

….. I guess I popped the cork prematurely <sigh>. But I promise to stay on track, eberthella, if you would too but I’ve to recognise that your tsunami tone has lost most of its magnitude and intensity…I guess the time-out did you a lot of good, eh? Perhaps I can still learn something else from you after-all… but please do stop whining about HomeBrew and swanny, it’s detrimental to beauty (it's a wrinkle-generator, doncha know?) and to your physical and mental well-being as well. Besides, you can still turn this discussion around and give some of us, the flu vaccine fence sitters more fodder to chew on.

The “safety” I was referring to is the one that is uppermost in the public’s mind (weren’t you harping so much about how technical/scientific terminologies should be translated to public policy?). So when the average joe gets a jab in the arm, he’s not thinking of risk assessment or weighing costs and benefits nor of “perceived urgencies” …the only urgency for him is the possibility of dropping dead or coming down with the disease or suffering severe side effects from the vaccine..hmm....or getting something like the Guillain-Barre Syndrome. So the safety results released by the CDC last week are probably good enough to ease some of the public fear.

I’ve just started reading a book about the early days of the FDA so my knowledge about it is so meager (that saves you pointing out to my ignorance, ok) They’re the superpower that controls the life and death of a new drug but when it comes to the annual flu vaccines, isn’t the advisory panel closely involved (together with the WHO and the CDC) in the planning and the design (at least in determining which strains to be included) of the vaccines that Big Pharma are supposed to manufacture for a particular year? So I guess all the rigorous safety and efficacy trials for licensing are skipped, isn’t this an indication of “urgency”, they’ve assessed that the benefits far outweigh the risks? The seasonal vaccines have a good record, right...so why must we put up such a resistance for the H1N1? My gosh, if the people can’t trust the WHO, the FDA, the CDC, our government health agencies, even our own doctors (most of then are recommending to get it) then who can we trust? Otoh, why decide to develop a monovalent vaccine instead of just including it in the seasonal cocktail-…bec it was already too late or bec it’s just another cash cow but that’s probably just a conspiracy theory…...

Casandra - there's no need to show your inexperience and usual hatreds further. This discussion was for vaccine for a pandemic flu - and I hope at least you've learned the meaning of the term - pandemic.

Please - would you or would you not take the vaccine.

A fine way to dodge all the issues I raised and questions I asked had you been at the receiving end of eberth’s attacks…instead you dole out your usual ad hom one liners against me, eh George? And it seems that “pandemic” caused a lot of confusion here (darn the WHO) so why the heck couldn’t I just define it the way I want to so go ahead and sue me.

And you’re absolutely right, I’m inexperienced in a lot of ways but I’m probably relatively young compared with you guys. Hopefully, by the time I reach your age, wiser, nobler and kinder people have already shown me the way and then it would be my turn not to look down upon but instead to help out or even inspire the young and inexperienced to do better and more importantly learn from all the mistakes of those before them…(oh yeah, please play Bach’s Air…).

If I had shown any hatred (although this is too strong a word- anger is better) it would be against arrogance and callousness, condescension and pretentiousness, sexism and chauvinism..let’s throw in injustice and corruption bla bla bla bla….and when have I shown hatred or unjustified/unprovoked anger in this forum….you can set up a poll for this?

And whether I take the vaccine or not, do you really care? Actually, I'm still undecided..not convinced either way but I still have time. By george, George….you really hurt my feelings this time and now I am traumatised….

I think we understand you are not familiar with the concepts here and would rather talk about your feelings, a fairly common practice as you're rarely addressed a technical subject in a productive manner.

So Georgie - it looks like you, swanny and I will not avail ourselves of the vaccine. Homebrew and casandra have not observed an intent.

If all you're looking for is a poll of who will or will not get the swine flu vaccine, why don't you start a poll in a new thread entitled "Will you get the swine flu vaccine"? This thread, entitled "Concern for swine flu vaccination - from BMJ" encourages people to voice their concerns about the vaccination.

I, and my family, plan on getting the vaccine and the annual flu shot, but not because of some panic-driven fear that I will suddenly get the swine flu and die. Instead, it is because we have an infant and feel a responsibility to protect him from illness. I work in the largest clinical research facility in the world. There are several thousand people (sick and well) and I take a crowded metro to/from work, so I feel that I would have a higher probability of catching any flu than the average person. I am aware that, like any medication not scrutinized by the FDA, there are safety concerns; however, as I mentioned I feel the risk/benefit ratio for my family is good, even if you perceive the "risk" to be low. I also feel that as scientists, we should have some faith in other scientists. What does it say to the public when we won't take our own medications?

For those of you who are not planning on being immunized, is there a particular reason, other than feeling that that it is unnecessary? Do any of you have newborns? Do you think that the risk of side effects outweighs the risk for illness? Also, if, hypothetically, the swine flu started becoming a serious threat, would you then get the vaccine or would the fear of side effects still weigh out?

And do they refuse to take it because they think the vaccin is "bad" , more side-effects then normal, or they just refuse it, since they do not see the point in taking a vaccin against the flu?


Because I want to point something out on that matter: what with the "normal" vaccin each year?

Each year doctors and nurses are "asked" to take the vaccin, but in general those people do not take it ( I am speaking about belgian nurses and docs.. do not know how it is in other countries).

Great....my pre-lunch coffee with a dash of bash...Let me get through to your delusions, eberthella. I’d never be soo pretentious claiming to offer technical expertise that I don’t have in a thread that's not even a tech query. At least my arguments and opinions are honest and hopefully valid and as Homebrew stated, this thread is about flu vaccine concerns. It would have been more productive had you not contributed much to its disruption and digression (I'm just as guilty so I’m not excusing myself). And I apologise sincerely to those who have contributed sanely to this discussion.

And what’s wrong about feelings? Weren’t you bemoaning the fact that the swine flu classification of WHO as a pandemic is irresponsible bec of the possible misuse of the media by exploting public fear? Therefore this issue itself is laden with emotions. Besides I like having feelings…they teach us empathy and humanity (must I always point out the obvious here?) so you shld try to find some sometime, I mean, before it's too late.....but the extent of my feelings for you, eberthella …read my eyes……. so is it Georgie now? Tell me it ain’t so George….

ok…preparing now for the next siege, hopefully after lunch (hmmm...where are my powerful weapons of massive inexperience and technical inexpertise ?)….….

Hi Dr Teeth,

I also work within a hospital setting so I've been getting seasonal flu shots a few years and I've never been sick. The vaccines were either effective or it's because I have the immune system of a sasquatch. The hospital, of course is promoting the vaccine drive e.g. thru newsletters, memos, posters everywhere etc not only because we're high risk personnel but also to reduce absenteeism during the regular flu season and esp if we do get the second wave where personnel is needed the most. Besides, it would be difficult not to be vaccinated bec they set up these roving clinics everyday and people come in droves during break periods. You're passing by and you see a colleague one moment....do some chitchat and the next moment, you're signing a consent form and a needle is being poked into your arm.......in the end, I'll probably get both vaccines....I just wish it would just be one time tho....

i have never had a flu vaccine... because well, i don't like shots, and after every vaccine i get sick. Also, i think i had the swine flu 2 weeks ago (not as bad as regular flu... but it did last over a weekend, so that sucked). By the way, i work in a hospital (setting)... and i'm pretty sure i got the flu when a nurse decided to sneeze all over me on a bus (EWWWWW!!!!!!! she should have known better... but no, she just sat there with stuff dripping out of her nose.)

i really do not understand the "desperate" need for the vaccine. this H1N1 strain has been around for decades, it hit hard back in the 60s, and was known to be running amok in the 80s and 90s.
The people at risk for this strain are the elderly, but they're at risk for every strain of flu. They are also the group of people who should have the antibodies for the strain already.
The other groups are the immunocomprimised, and the very young... which, according to my understanding, shouldn't have the vaccine anyway.
Haven't more people died from the regular flu that was out this season?

The rush in getting this vaccine out seems... enforced by the media.

Meanwhile, it's nice to have feelings... it's the invisble hand that drives the world. there is also something called respect, and polite disagreement. this has never been the place for being an internet tough guy, and just because this is an anonymous forum, doesn't mean people can behave in a manner that they would not do so if face to face. so if someone on this board has a problem with the way people feel, or if they feel the need to disrespect the members of this board, perhaps they should find somewhere else to be.

V

I have to laugh - casandra does go on - now talking to herself.

Pito - the reason cited was concern for safety. My bias is that they also see the risk of H1N1 being small - so it's a risk need judgement.

And eberthella - I never said I'd take the vaccine or not. In fact (and you're right) I would not.

Because you don't wanna talk to me you only give me ad homs......didn't know you could laugh.....my good deed for the day then..........

This is a technical subject and you are not prpeared for its discussion. As with eberthella, I have no desire to talk about your feelings.

[quote name='GeorgeWolff' date='Sep 9 2009, 01:59 PM' post='35846']
This is a technical subject and you are not prepared for its discussion. As with eberthella, I have no desire to talk about your feelings.

I believe you'll find more of an audience in the nontechnical online community discussion.

oh sure, whether you like it or not ....you are not bioforum nor a moderator to tell me where I can and can not go...you aint got that power dude.. ...but thanks for your suggestion.......

No one is telling you to leave. Of course, you may stay and show your ignorance and "feelings" at your discretion.

Then I'm glad that it's clear now...for a moment there I thought that your name changed to red....so I prefer to stay here and revel in your arrogance...and I am soo "feeling" it... .......

As I said.
Question - I've rarely observed a technically-relevant comment from you and, for those few, the comment has been shallow if not obviously incorrect. Have you anything to do with biology other than your harassment of discussions in bioforum?

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

oh yeah, like madonna's farting fake breasts is soo technically-relevant.........you've got the gall to bring up the word "harassment" but you flatter me by saying I did this to you....and as a corollary, "we reap what we sow"....

This thread has pretty much run its course, I think...