48 replies to this topic

[GeorgeWolff]

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 . . .

[bob1]

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.

[GeorgeWolff]

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.

[pito]

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.

Edited by pito, 01 September 2009 - 03:33 AM.

[GeorgeWolff]

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...

[pito]

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

Quote

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, 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.

[HomeBrew]

From the CDC:

Quote

A Pandemic Is Declared

On June 11, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) signaled that a global pandemic of novel influenza A (H1N1) was underway by raising the worldwide pandemic alert level to Phase 6. This action was a reflection of the spread of the new H1N1 virus, not the severity of illness caused by the virus. At the time, more than 70 countries had reported cases of novel influenza A (H1N1) infection and there were ongoing community level outbreaks of novel H1N1 in multiple parts of the world.
(emphasis added)

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:

Quote

When the novel H1N1 flu outbreak was first detected in mid-April 2009, CDC began working with states to collect, compile and analyze information regarding the novel H1N1 flu outbreak, including the numbers of confirmed and probable cases of disease. From April 15, 2009 to July 24, 2009, states reported a total of 43,771 confirmed and probable cases of novel influenza A (H1N1) infection. Of these cases reported, 5,011 people were hospitalized and 302 people died. On July 24, 2009, confirmed and probable case counts were discontinued.

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...

[Dr Teeth]

HomeBrew, on Sep 1 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

From the CDC:

Quote

A Pandemic Is Declared

On June 11, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) signaled that a global pandemic of novel influenza A (H1N1) was underway by raising the worldwide pandemic alert level to Phase 6. This action was a reflection of the spread of the new H1N1 virus, not the severity of illness caused by the virus. At the time, more than 70 countries had reported cases of novel influenza A (H1N1) infection and there were ongoing community level outbreaks of novel H1N1 in multiple parts of the world.
(emphasis added)

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:

Quote

When the novel H1N1 flu outbreak was first detected in mid-April 2009, CDC began working with states to collect, compile and analyze information regarding the novel H1N1 flu outbreak, including the numbers of confirmed and probable cases of disease. From April 15, 2009 to July 24, 2009, states reported a total of 43,771 confirmed and probable cases of novel influenza A (H1N1) infection. Of these cases reported, 5,011 people were hospitalized and 302 people died. On July 24, 2009, confirmed and probable case counts were discontinued.

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?

[HomeBrew]

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.

[GeorgeWolff]

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.

[eberthella]

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.

[HomeBrew]

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.

[eberthella]

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.

[swanny]

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.

[eberthella]

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.