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 SE22 Evri delivery family are lovely, and always say hello wherever we spot them in the area. We gave them a box of chocolates during Covid as they were working their socks off at Christmas
    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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