Jump to content

Recommended Posts

All two to 17-year-olds in the UK are to be offered annual flu vaccinations...


...The children will be immunised using a nasal spray rather than an injection, starting in 2014 at the earliest.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18969338


Given the expense of this maybe we should ask the question why, especially as flu is only a minor inconvenience to the majority of healthy children?


Would I be a conspiracy nutter if I queried whether the government knows more than it is telling us? Could it be related to the mutation of bird flu in Asia and the new flu virus found in seals in the US?


I think we should be told


(New flu virus found in seals concerns scientists http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19055961)

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/24823-flu-vaccines-for-all-children/
Share on other sites

Yes.

Vaccine will be of no use against a mutated cross-species strain.


I do tend to agree that it really should be only offered to children with health conditions.


But then 19 healthy kids died in the 2009 pandemic, that's 19 devastated families probably demanding enquiries as to why vaccines weren't offered to kids etc.

In politics the old adage about damned if you do damned if you don't is truer than in most walks of life.

You're correct in the sense that a general flu vaccine would be ineffective against a specifically mutated strain - hence the fear of a pandemic.


Which again begs the question why? Why is the government proposing a mass vaccination programme? Millions of people have been exposed to the Avian influenza strain H5N1 in Asia and suffer no ill effects so it would only make sense if elements of this strain was included in the vaccine.

Surely it's just a political or financial palliative?


Everyone thinks the Tories are cutting disproportionately, so they roll out an apparently expensive white elephant that probably simply resolved an outstanding contractual dispute at low cost.


There may have been a contract signed recently that promised ?xxx expenditure over Y years in return for a supplier discount. Austerity hit, targets were missed, and now we have a a make-good.


Either way, not worth bothering about it.


I don't see why it should need to be anything more than that?

Children do not suffer unduly from flu (despite the 19 deaths quoted above). However, they do make excellent carriers of the virus and, as a result, transmit it into the wide and more vulnerable population. Vaccinating all children is expected to pay off economically and socially by reducing hospitalisations of elderly due to flu (I think but cannot confirm the figure is circa 11,000 fewer) and reducing deaths among the elderly by circa 1,000.


All in all a good idea and neither a conspiracy by New Nexus lizards nor a Tory sop.

Yes but...


If there were 24,605 schools in January 2010 (figures are for England only) and they have, say, 250 pupils each (6,151,250) plus add Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish school children plus government projections for an increase in pupils by 2014 plus number of children aged 2 to 4 then you must be looking at at least 8+ million children aged 2 to 17 eligible for flu vaccines in 2014.


That strikes me as a lot of vaccines, a lot of needles/sprayers, Heath service personnel to administer the nasal spray, transport, refrigerated storage etc etc.


Where's the potential savings?


The only justification for such a mass programme would be to minimise the risk of a pandemic to the general population and the H3N3 strain of Seal flu would be one of these potential threats.


The question is then, will the nation's children be oinking, slapping their arms together and balancing balls on their noses after the vaccinations?


http://education.gov.uk/popularquestions/schools/buildings/a005553/how-many-schools-are-there-in-england

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> MM Whilst I agree with the principals of your

> argument if flu vaccines worked, they don't.

>

> Everybody involved must know this.


Hugenot - you must be reading too many conspiracist blogs, I thought better of you. Flu vaccines do work - there are problems, one of which is the lack of "herd immunity", which the programme to vaccinate all children will address and improve.


I can be as cynical as any man, and perhaps more so about health issues as I work inside the sector. However, I do tend to place a high degree of confidence in the medical research behind the Chief Medical officer's flu vaccine plan as do physicians I work with.

MM said:


"...I do tend to place a high degree of confidence in the medical research behind the Chief Medical officer's flu vaccine plan as do physicians I work with..."


There's nothing wrong with that MM and generally I would agree with that. (I personally accepted the assurances on MMR)However, sometimes the real purpose is on a 'need to know' basis.


This vaccination proposal is extraordinary. We have a nasty form of TB sweeping this country and the world and there's no mention of a mass vaccination programme. Within living memory TB carries were locked away for the safety of the general population in what were quasi-prisons.


This is not a case of the Chief Medical officer recommending that people have a flu jab because there is a nasty new form of Spanish flu around. The proposal will see all 2-year-old children embark on a 16-year annual flu vaccination programme from 2014.


Why?


(Correction: the strain of Seal flu referred to above should be H3N8. Sorry for the typo)

Silver Fox said "This is not a case of the Chief Medical officer recommending that people have a flu jab because there is a nasty new form of Spanish flu around. The proposal will see all 2-year-old children embark on a 16-year annual flu vaccination programme from 2014.


Why?"


Because the flu vaccine, even over 16 years is estimated to be very, very safe. So the downside is very, very low. The upside is 2,000 lives saved a year and 11,000 hospital cases avoided every year. Socially and financially this makes absolute sense.


I agree that a similar mass vaccination against TB might be a good idea - tho' altho' it is becoming a major problem again it is, at present, only effecting a small and discrete segment of the general population.

I'm having trouble finding figures for the number of school children in the UK. I've found the following from August 2007 but don't know how authoritative it is:


UK school population: Approx 9.5 million children.


England: 8,200,000

Wales: 494,181

Scotland: 743,561


http://pippaking.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/how-many-children.html


So if there were 9.5 million in 2007 it's probably a reasonable guess they'll be about 12 million in 2014 at least, especially including 2 to 4 year olds.


So again, how does this make sense financially? Unless there's a different motive for the mass vaccination campaign.

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So again, how does this make sense financially?

> Unless there's a different motive for the mass

> vaccination campaign.


It makes sense financially because children who are vaccinated against the disease aren't going to spread it to more vulnerable people who, as uncleglen pointed out, catch things expensively.


Schools, together with hospitals, act as distribution hubs for infections. The current thinking of our finest medical minds is that it's easier to get kids to stick things up their noses than it is to persuade nurses to get vaccinated.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...