[Closed] Advice - Should we let our 2 year old get the Swine Flu vacine?

Why wouldn't you?

It's a personal thing, we didn't.

Why?

Well there's a huge drop in the number of cases and I reckon both my kids had it in October. Guess what it didn't kill them.

Why is a huge drop in the number of cases a reason not to vaccinate?

We had it done, hunting around didn't throw up any reasons against.

[i]Why is a huge drop in the number of cases a reason not to vaccinate?[/i]

Even less likely to catch it now.

But what's the downside. It's not like they're using the active virus in the vaccine so there's just no reason to not have at-risk groups vaccinated.

Your right there is no real risk involved with it, some argue other wise, but it's also not essential they have it. Yes there's risks involved with Flu but both my kids are very strong and healthy with no health issues, so we chose not to bother with it. Flu can kill but it also just make you feel unwell for a week or 2.

It's your kid, you decide simple as that.

We chose not to have it for our 41/2 year old as she is very healthy and attends a school free (as far as we know) from the swine flu. Why put her through it as 'if' she contracts it, she'll have the tamiflu tablets anyway.

I would never take Tamiflu or give my kids Tamiflu, it has many side effects and only reduces the effect of Flu by a few days not get rid of it.

You guys are aware that the "my child has a healthy immune system so doesn't need it" argument is the same argument that gets used by Anti Vaccination groups who think that all vaccines are part of some sort of evil government conspiracy? You only have to look at the comments that are made about the measles vaccine where people use the same logic that you guys are using to defend not giving their children that vaccination with the result that a disease that we should have beaten long ago in the UK is on the rise again.

Vaccination isn't just about protecting the person who gets the jab, it's about protecting the rest of society as a whole. There is no reason not to take the vaccine. The simple fact is, that influenza kills and not just those with underlying symptoms.

[url= http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/27/frustraglio-h1n1-toronto-hockey113.html ]Like this child.[/url]

So the wife asked if I would open it up to the STW masses to see if there is any advice/opinions that would help us in reaching a decision.

Fantastic!

Gonefishin, there's a big difference between the reason for MMR jab and flu jab. The logic I use is not based on speculation it's based on the knowledge of my kids and my experience of dealing with suspected flu/swine flu cases.

Well done you found a case where a well child of it but there's been millions that haven't.

All vaccinations indeed all medical interventions have some risk attached. This is normally higher in the young ( as are the risks of complications from illness as well)

So you need a risk / benefit analysis to know for sure. What is the benefit? What are the relative risks of having it and not having it? Is the child at high risk of complications if they catch the disease?

"First do no harm"

Gonefishin, there's a big difference between the reason for MMR jab and flu jab

Is there really a difference? The purpose of a vaccine, as I understand, is to limit the spread of a viral infection, although I'm happy to be corrected on that point. Now I was careful not to compare influenza to measles (or MMR for that matter) as it was the similarities in the reasoning that I wanted to demonstrate. I was not trying to compare the diseases.

The logic I use is not based on speculation it's based on the knowledge of my kids and my experience of dealing with suspected flu/swine flu cases.

Now i know you are a paramedic and therefore have far greater medical knowledge than I do, however the argument that "I know my kids" is one that is used over and over and it fundamentally flawed. The simple fact is that even with a healthy immune system there is no guarantee that an infection like the flu won't be very damaging and potentially. Granted and compromised immune system will increase this likelihood but a healthy one doesn't eliminate it.

Well done you found a case where a well child of it but there's been millions that haven't.

Yes you are correct and I did think hard about whether to post and anecdote or not and I'm sure you are correct that there are millions who have been infected and survived just fine. The same however can be said for just about every other vaccine preventable disease. I'm also pretty sure that this was the case where after this lads death there was a massive increase in the vaccination rate a suddenly people realised that even an "otherwise healthy child" had died.

TJ as far as I've been able to find out, the potential consequences of the 'flu jab is a sore arm and the main benefit is a huge reduction in the risk of contracting a potentially fatal disease. That to me a no brainer.

"First do no harm" doesn't mean that your default position is doing nothing. There are risks involved in intervention, however that doesn't mean that there is no risk involved in [i]not[/i] intervening.

Gonefishin - I gave no answers but those are some of the questions. "First do no harm" indeed does mean the default position is to do nothing - a basic principle of medicine. You have to be sure that whatever intervention you do will improve outcomes.

All vaccinations will have side effects including this one - and we may not know about them all yet. medical knowledge is not perfect. Has it been tested on toddlers? No. How high is the relative risk?

In this particular case you have to weigh the probable minor side effects and the rare serious side effects against the low chance of getting swine flu and the low risk of complications from the swine flu should the child be infected.

Thats the only sensible basis for making the decision

I have been a big cynic of the whole media frenzy around Swine Flu since it began in the Summer. But having suffered from Man Flu in the past, I have been in the unfortunate position for the past week of having been clinically diagnosed with 'proper' Swine Flu. A thoroughly miserable and painful experience I can tell you. I wouldn't wish it on James Martin (well, maybe I would actually!). If I had the opportunity to avoid having gone through this, I would have done, but I understand your nervousness given a 2 year old. It really is a cut above 'normal' flu, but the Tamiflu is not much fun either, with extreme vommiting as one of the many unpleasant side effects. If the vaccine is anything like that, I would probably take the risk and not have it. Evidently the outbreak has not been as widespread as 'they' originally feared, but just keep your fingers crossed that she doesn't get it as it really is horrible. The doctor was happy to prescribe a lesser dose of Tamiflu to my other half as a preventative, but even he said that the side effects probably outweighed the risk of getting it, even from prolonged and close contact with me.

it was the similarities in the reasoning that I wanted to demonstrate. I was not trying to compare the diseases.

A risk/benefit analysis requires that you do exactly that because the risks are different for different diseases. The benefit of maintaining herd immunity to a relatively low risk disease can't be equated to maintaining it for a higher risk disease.

[i]Is there really a difference? The purpose of a vaccine, as I understand, is to limit the spread of a viral infection,[/i]

It is but the differnce between Measels at al is whole world of difference, whilst essentially it's to try and stop the spread MMR is jab is for 3 very nasty diseases.

Flu kill 1,000s in this country every year kids and adults but this is the first time they've offered the jab to kids even though the cases have fallen massively and are 1,000 miles short of what they were predicting.

[i]however the argument that "I know my kids" is one that is used over and over and it fundamentally flawed.[/i]

No it's not. One of the questions asked when assesing anyone not just kids is how are they compared to normal, have they been like this before and does it seem like their normal illness. It's an assesment tool not a flaw.

wont be doing ours.
i had these words casualy uttered to me at on time...it could hav been a childhood jab that caused your epilepsy.

what do you reckon on that drac?

[i]what do you reckon on that drac? [/i]

It would involve more than speculation and would have to rule out every other reason for it too. Epilepsy is caused by many things, while it's always possible there's too many other things that cause it.

cheers.
it was said years ago by my GP and its kind of played on my mind ever since.
supose its daft to jump on that whilst moaning look what you did to me you bast88ds 😆

the OP should be talking to medical professionals not people on an OT mtb discussion board regarding his 2 yo

you then weigh it up and make a decision

why?
he just wants as much opinion as he can get.

As I understand it these flu vaccines are not a public health policy in the same way MMR is. These letters are part of a targeted invitational programme to immunise those at greatest risk, not reduce infection rates to sub-epidemic levels.

the control of mumps, measels and rubella has wider public health benefits than flu control and relies upon minimum levels of takeup in the entire population.

Personally im indifferent to flu jabs as fatality rates are relatively low and even then and have high correlation with identified high risk groups. I may well let my 3 year old get the jab because he occasionally suffers from fluid on his lungs and flu might aggravate his chronic condition.

but the Tamiflu is not much fun either, with extreme vommiting as one of the many unpleasant side effects. If the vaccine is anything like that, I would probably take the risk and not have it.

I have 4 kids aged 7, 6, 3 and 2. All of them are Norwegian citizens (so is there mum). When we got advised that only the youngest two would be vaccinated, we investigated what was happening in Norway. In the UK, the 'at-risk' groups are vaccinated, in Norway, everyone is vaccinated. So, when we were over at Christmas we had all 4 vaccinated, plus there mum and the Doctor kindly vaccinated me as well for £15.

Norway's health system is miles ahead of the UK. If every Norwegian is getting a jag, I'd say it's ok.

Hope this helps.

[i]If every Norwegian is getting a jag, I'd say it's ok.[/i]

If they were to give me a Jag too and take it.

We had our 3 & 1 year olds vaccinated we believed doing the best for our children, our choice I suppose.

SV - absolutely - making [i]informed[/i] choices is the key. It is not as clear cut as some would think and there is no one right answer.

As SV says - personal choice. My gf is heavily pregnant- its not even on the agenda for us nor will it ever be.

As I understand it these flu vaccines are not a public health policy in the same way MMR is. These letters are part of a targeted invitational programme to immunise those at greatest risk, not reduce infection rates to sub-epidemic levels.

Yeah, unless you're working in a hospital/school etc. it's to stop people who if they had it would be at risk of dying / having their health damaged in the long term, hence it being given to old people, kids, and pregnant women. So basically it's your choice as to whether you want to remove the risk from your kids.

As far as the 'suspected cases of swine flu', it does seem that everyone who had a bit of flu in the last year has been told that it could possibly have been swine flu.

Joe

not particularly pro vaccination - think the multiple vaccines at early age are a bit aggressive - we had our kids vaccinated when older than the health authorities would prefer, am of the opinion that the general uk child vaccination program is pretty focussed on the "greater good" with an acceptance that there maybe a very low chance of some problems with a very small number of kids

having said that youngest (7) is immune suppressed and had the swine flu vaccine early on - based on 2 things - 1 being that the high temperature and vomitting would screw up her normal medication - the other being the tendency for children to get chest complications and if the swine flu had continued to spread at the sort of initial rate we saw then i'm pretty certain not enough hospital facilities to cope with rafts of kids with chest complications which seem pretty common in kids

both ours reacted to the vaccine with a short burst of moaning and groaning with headache and slightly elevated temp 24hrs after injections
edit but no real cause for any concern

How many people have been killed by the vacine? None as far as I know.

How many people have been killed by the virus? Lots as with seasonal flu.

How many perfectly healthy young people have been killed by the virus? More than for normal flu.

A 24-year-old sportman with no health problems died locally recently. Flu viruses often get a second wind so I'll predict a rise in the next few weeks..

In at least one of the previous pandemics, a healthy immune system [b][u]caused[/b][/u] a lot of the deaths, particularly in young men. Massive immune response overwhelmed the body, fatally in a lot of cases. Food for thought 🙁

We have just been invited to get our 2 year old done. Not sure whether too, thing that bother me is the speed with which they created a vaccine, I would have though that normally the testing of a new drug would take years not months? How much was this one rushed just to hush the media?

stupot - the annual vaccine is made in the same way every year.

[i]Flu viruses often get a second wind so I'll predict a rise in the next few weeks.. [/i]

Another second wind for swine flu, that'll be at least it's third now. I'll wonder what they'll do this time to boost the figures, first it was switching from blood tests to over the phone, then it was anyone with Flu symptoms has swine flu not seasonal. Will it be anyone who sneezes has swine flu and will probably die.

I would let your 2 year old have the vacine as a precaution if nothing else, my 9 year old had it without complications, although he was supposed to have a secondary booster but they changed that policy. If your child does get swine flu and you didnt get the vaccine you would probably kick yourself. Same sort of argument for the MMR jab, how mant children are at risk or are indeed contracting measle as a result of parents listening to scarmongers due to some idiot scientist or doctor linking it to Autism.

Better safe than sorry.

Ooops!

am of the opinion that the general uk child vaccination program is pretty focussed on the "greater good" with an acceptance that there maybe a very low chance of some problems with a very small number of kids

having said that youngest (7) is immune suppressed

It's still around, although thankfully not at the worst predicted levels. Seeing a 20 odd year old lady with sats of 70 on 100% O2 two days after giving birth makes me less dismissive of the danger...

how mant children are at risk or are indeed contracting measle as a result of parents listening to scarmongers due to some idiot scientist or doctor linking it to Autism.

I'd listen to all the pros and cons but also- if a Doctor or Scientist disagrees with something then I'll also listen to what they have to say.

[i]Seeing a 20 odd year old lady with sats of 70 on 100% O2 two days after giving birth makes me less dismissive of the danger.[/i]

There is a danger and very much people like her but it's far from the danger that they predicted and the press jumped on.

[i]There is a danger and very much people like her but it's far from the danger that they predicted and the press jumped on. [/i]

Yup, I agree.

We've got tons of very expensive stuff sitting around doing nothing, and I wonder what will happen to it; I know we've got enough critical care stuff to double our capacity, which represents an awful lot of money tied up in equipment.

i think that, although swine flu does exist, it's fed into the media and blown up into a massive frenzy in order to 1) sell newspapers and 2) boost the profits of the vaccine manufacturers by having the population shitting themselves about it.

also, have the vaccines been properly tested?

we need a good population decimator. far too many of us here as it is. flus are natures way of keeping our population levels in check.

hora - Member I'd listen to all the pros and cons but also- if a Doctor or Scientist disagrees with something then I'll also listen to what they have to say.

So would I, but doesn't mean to say their opinion would be correct, like the chap who linked MMR to Autism, found to be incorrect and irresponsible.

[i]i think that, although swine flu does exist, it's fed into the media and blown up into a massive frenzy in order to 1) sell newspapers and 2) boost the profits of the vaccine manufacturers by having the population shitting themselves about it.[/i]

Easy to adopt that position after the fact.

It could have been a complete disaster, and the planning that went into dealing with it reflected that. Imagine if it proved just a little more virulent, just a little more widespread....

Schools would have shut because parents wouldn't send their kids out. Anyone who knew anyone who was pregnant wouldn't have gone out because the risk of infecting others would have been too great. Hospital staff would have ended up running a skeleton service because a large number would have been off either with the flu or looking after those relatives or children who had it.

Essentially, we were very lucky THIS TIME.

I've said it before, but it's worth repeating; I'm an experienced adult ITU nurse, but when people start making plans that involve me looking after paediatric ITU patients, or plans that involve me supervising other non-ITU nurses while they look after ITU patients, I start to get scared.

Add in too, that swine flu patients in ITU are difficult and complicated to look after, and that ITU capacity in the past few months has been at full stretch....

It's easy to sit back and say it was a lot of fuss over nothing, but it's not a sensible position to take...

Hmm! Interesting, when I seen the plans put in place for us I thought. Well here we go again over kill for something that may not happen. The threat was there yes and they had to make planes but did I think because these plans where made it would happen. No, my experience told me they were just that plans.

It's hard know really though -

either it was:
a)Massive overkill, hyped up panic, what a waste of time vaccinating everyone.
or:
b)Just in time vaccine program stopped a very bad illness hitting the most vulnerable people and causing significant badness.

You can't really tell which one it was, given that we did vaccinate lots of the most vulnerable people.

Joe

Hype or not. Whether I am one of a few thousand minor breakout or part of a multi million epidemic. I have had it and you really wouldn't want it! Never had 'proper' flu before but it's really nasty. If the vaccine has even prevented one person getting it, then good job I say.

It's a risk assessment. The probability of it happening might be low, but the consequences of it happening are so bad that you have to take it seriously.

alpin - that over population crap is spouted every time something like this comes up. Unless you're prepared to do yourself in, sterilise yourself or refuse medical treatment for you and your family for the good of mankind, it's just hypocritical b*llocks. What you really mean is it's ok for everyone else to die, but not me or mine.

So after reading through 2 pages I havent seen any reason here not to have it done, unless Im missing something - why wouldnt anyone have it...? What exactly is it anyones afraid of..??

What exactly is it anyones afraid of..??

...actually I'm being a bit unfair, given I was dubious when we got the letter through, though a little research didn't come up with the horror stories about kids having the vaccine that I'd expected.

So after reading through 2 pages I havent seen any reason here not to have it done

If its bike-related I'd agree with the above. Something like this needs cross-referencing and questions to your GP etc etc.

woody2000 - Member

alpin - that over population crap is spouted every time something like this comes up. Unless you're prepared to do yourself in, sterilise yourself or refuse medical treatment for you and your family for the good of mankind, it's just hypocritical b*llocks. What you really mean is it's ok for everyone else to die, but not me or mine.

never had the vaccine. don't have any kids. i'm sure if i did have kids i still wouldn't have had it done. my best mates little 'un didn't have it and is still alive and kicking. i know of nobody who either died from or contracted pig flu.

Not sure what any of that has got to do with your assertion that "we need a good population decimator", alpin.

I had my 9 month old vaccinated after a bit of thought. The main one being that despite a lot of people saying "it's only flu", you don't have to look that far back to see the damage that previous flu outbreaks have caused. Hong Kong flu back in the late 60's killed around a million, and Spanish Flu back in the 20's killed over 50 million. Now it turns out that swine flu isn't as virriluent, but we didn't know that when he was vaccinated and it seemed common sense to cover him. I spoke to a doctor friend of mine, and also to my sister in law who's a pharmacist, and both said the risk of complications were low. Although this is a new vaccine, the constitution of it is the same as the standard flu vaccine that has been given for years, the only difference being the dead flu part of it is tailored to what flu is prevelant that year.

I like to think medicine has moved on since the 1920s never mind the 60s.

I like to think medicine has moved on since the 1920s never mind the 60s.

I like to think medicine has moved on since the 1920s never mind the 60s.

Yeah, the vaccine. Which is why I gave it to him. 🙄

[i]my best mates little 'un didn't have it and is still alive and kicking[/i]

Without a doubt the best reserched reason for not vaccinating one's kids I have seen on STW.

my best mates little 'un didn't have it and is still alive and kicking. i know of nobody who either died from or contracted pig flu.

You know I can't make up my mind if this is a troll or just plain old stupidity. I don't know of anyone who has died from [url= http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/Immunisation_Schedule ]any of these vaccine preventable diseases.[/url] It doesn't mean that no one dies from them.

that and bunnyhop's closed thread..... 😀

Well my son (9) and my partner (35) both have had the vaccine, along with the partners sister who is a nurse, other than the sister who felt rough after having the vaccine and took a day off work, all have been ok since. I believe there are two different types of vaccine I know my partners sister had a different one to mrs flippinheckler and our son. Which is best I couldnt tell you.

I don't know why but I read that as Spanish Fly killed millions. 😕

Darn that stuff must be strong 8)

[i]Yeah, the vaccine. Which is why I gave it to him.[/i]

Ah right so everything else we have was available then and also free too. I stand corrected then.

But as you've mentioned the Spanish flu you'll find that it was more fatal to young adults then it was to young kids.

I don't want to join in on the "should I, shouldn't I?" debate. However, it's worth letting you know that my whole family (wife, me, 3 yo and 1 yo) were vaccinated before Christmas. My oldest is immuno-compromised so we were following protocol and advice given by his consultant.

Anyway, other than a slightly achy arm not one of us had any side-effects. In fact the kiddies seemed totally un-phased

Ah right so everything else we have was available then and also free too. I stand corrected then.

[i]Do you really think that if nobody takes the vaccine, other advances in medicine are sufficient to prevent the sort of pandemics which raged in the '20s and '60s?[/i]

Tamiflu makes no difference to it just reduces the symptoms a little. Penicillin will help those who go on to develop chest infections, it wasn't was easily available in 20s that's for sure. Intensive care and HDU have come on along way since the 60s too best off it's free in this country now. While it may well still spread without the vaccine it the symptoms that it produces can be treat a lot better too. The other big reason why the on in 20s had such a huge effect was the world was still coming out of the effects of WWI.

Health care has really come on in the last few decades which is huge contributing factor as to why we can survive Flu cases better than we did 50+ years ago.

Aracer - there is an awful lot of medicine that is available now that wasn't in the 20s. Huge amounts. Not in the preventing of infection with flu but in treating the complications from which people die

Why not? Its the "first do no harm" basis for deciding on a course of action.

How many vaccines can be purchased and administered for a single days HDU care?

Having had to visit my mother in an intensive care and high dependency units (not something I'd care to repeat or wish to inflict on anyone else) the treatments offered certainly did not come under the banner of "first do no harm". It appeared to me that it was more like do quite a bit of harm but at least it will give the patient a fighting chance and is significantly better than the alternative.

All very well treating the complications from which people die, but correct me if I'm wrong, despite these treatments people (some of whom were healthy) are dying. Now I'm certainly not one to go around scare mongering - yes it's currently not spreading anything like predicted, and as I've kind of mentioned before, I'm a bit of a cynic myself. However my question was about preventing the pandemic - treating complications wouldn't do anything to prevent that, and if it did happen with millions of people getting ill, not only would significant numbers die, but there would be all sorts of other problems caused by people not making it to work (see all the whingeing about schools being closed due to snow - what if schools were closed for weeks at a time?) It seems at least plausible to me that the current vaccination programme will help prevent such a pandemic - though the cynics will always be able to point out there's no proof that it did.

You keep mentioning "first do no harm", TJ - please explain to me exactly what harm having the vaccination does (slight pain in the arm and slight fever for <24 hours doesn't count). After all I haven't even heard of a single person who's had worse reaction than that 😉

Errm "first do no harm" is a a basic principle behind medicine - or should be but sometimes gets forgotton.

- a sore arm and fever symptoms for 24 hrs? That counts as harm in my book. There cannot be complete knowledge of the potential for harm from the vaccine.

The point is you have to be sure that in the particular situation you are in that any action you take reduces the harm to that person. If the odds of getting a particular disease are very low and then is the benefit from the vaccine worth the risk from the vaccination? Both are very low probability events bar the minor common side effects of the vaccination.

thus my view is that if you are in an at risk category then it makes total sense to have it. If you are not the case for having the vaccination is much less clear cut.

Personally I am not in a high risk group and I react badly to vaccinations so I have not had it and won't. Thats my personal position. Other people will have differing priorities and thus may arrive at a different decision.

[i]All very well treating the complications from which people die, but correct me if I'm wrong, despite these treatments people (some of whom were healthy) are dying.[/i]

Yes but not 50 million.

If the odds of getting a particular disease are very low and then is the benefit from the vaccine worth the risk from the vaccination?

Vaccines aren't there simply to protect the individual, they also protect the rest of society. Sorry but a sore arm for a reduction for eliminating the risk of death is a real bonus as far as I can tell.

thus my view is that if you are in an at risk category then it makes total sense to have it. If you are not the case for having the vaccination is much less clear cut.

Well it's interesting that Drac appears to have removed the data that he posted that showed that the flu hospitalised more people with no underlying than those with underlying condition.

Gonefishin - but the amount of people being flu vaccinated is not enough to get herd immunity. Thus there is no public health benefit.

Of course flu hospitalised more people with no underlying condition - there are more of them!

Its about risk benefit analysis and it simply is not as straightforward as you think.

I just got an email from someone in the bike trade asking the same thing!

They even copied Jeff Steber from Intense in on the question.

BOGGLE

[i]Well it's interesting that Drac appears to have removed the data that he posted that showed that the flu hospitalised more people with no underlying than those with underlying condition[/i]

Nothing interesting about I posted the wrong link so removed it, the one I posted is on the BBC site.

Read into that what you will.

In fact here it is.
[img] [/img]

- a sore arm and fever symptoms for 24 hrs? That counts as harm in my book. There cannot be complete knowledge of the potential for harm from the vaccine.

As there cannot be for [i]any[/i] vaccine that hasn't been used for under 80 years. The point is, that the swine flu vaccine has been tested and released to the public under the same stringent testing regime that all vaccines and pharmacuticals have been. Are there cock ups? Of course. As a health proffesional you know that more than I do, and we all are aware of the thalidomide screw up (screw up seems a massive understatement, but I can't think of a better way to put it).

However, as you keep saying "first, do no harm" I had to ask myself: Will the potential listed side effects be worse than Sam contracting the virus? At the time, it wasn't known how bad or otherwise the virus would be. There had been a rapid spread of the virus, and deaths were higher than seasonal flu. I thought about it, weighed up the potential benefits and pitfalls and decided to give him the vaccine. He didn't seem to suffer from the jab and everything went ok. If he hadn't had the jab and they offered it to me again tomorrow, I might think about it a bit more, but I think I'd still give it to him.