There has been so much published about H1N1 swine flu in recent months that despite my keen interest in the topic (being an infectious diseases clinician involved with determining policy and strategic pandemic flu planning in my own hospital as well as looking after clinical cases), I can barely keep up with the medical aspects of the disease, never mind the rest of the information. But, as is ever the case, much of the other material that is in the public’s eye seems to be based on uninformed opinion and comment, rather than scientific facts.
One of the more mendacious bits of opinion currently pervading the media is to do with the vaccine and its possible adverse effects. Hardly anyone seems to have a good word for the H1N1 vaccines, and people appear to coming out in droves to say they will not be getting or recommending the vaccine for some tenuous reason or other. Another misleading view is that there has been a huge fuss over nothing because H1N1 swine flu has caused fewer deaths than originally anticipated, and that it may not kill many more people than would ordinarily die from “flu” in any particular season.
So let’s look at the problem from a different viewpoint, because there is a very real risk people may not see the wood for the trees. Forget about all the irrelevant speculation on swine flu and the scaremongering you hear about the vaccine for a moment. They only serve as a distraction from the direct and severe health consequences of this infection. Instead let us concentrate on the simple medical facts:
-
There is an illness which is spreading widely across the globe, and it has yet to reach its full extent.
This illness is usually mild but can be severe, particularly in vulnerable groups of individuals.
The illness has already directly caused thousands of deaths in Europe and the Americas so far, with most of these deaths occurring within the aforementioned vulnerable groups.
Because this illness is very widespread, it is causing major disruption to health service provision and will have far-reaching adverse consequences for other people with different health care needs.
This illness has been identified as being due to a specific virus.
Scientists have developed a specific vaccine against the virus.
Vaccines for these types of virus appear to be very effective, as well as very safe, and when the vaccine virus strains match the prevalent circulating virus strains they have been shown to be extremely effective at preventing the illness.
Now if this illness were a disease like leukaemia, or brain cancer, there would be rioting in the streets to demand that the preventative vaccine be made instantly available to everyone. Yet for some reason, many people just don’t seem bothered about H1N1 vaccination, despite the fact that swine flu is predicted to kill more people in a year than would die from leukaemia or brain tumours.
To me this is a no-brainer. There is a specific infection (H1N1) which is making many people ill and is killing a small (but numerically substantial) proportion of them. There is an effective way to stop this happening through vaccination, yet people are reluctant to support this. When one considers the lengths we go to in this country to avert deaths from other diseases, the indifference that many display about H1N1 swine flu beggars belief.
This is a guest post by British doctor DeeTee.
http://layscience.net/trackback/727
I've just had it and if I'd known before what it was like, I'd have had the vaccine. Every time I think it's gone the bastard thing comes back.
How can I be sure it was swine flu, though? If it wasn't, I'm getting vaccinated sharpish.
Excellent overview (and clearer I think than New Scientist's attempt today) but I still have a question. Many of us can't be certain, but think we've had swine flu. Is there any downside or risk to us in accepting vaccination if/when it's offered?
The advice for those who are eligible to receive the vaccine is to go ahead and get it, even if they have had a "flu-like illness" that might have been swine flu.
In the UK, less than 20% of the results came back as H1N1 positive on the initial laboratory testing of clinically suspected cases - most were rhinovirus, adenovirus, RSV and a few parainfluenzas.
So you may not have actually had H1N1, even though you think you had it. There is no reason not to have the vaccine, just to be on the safe side. Even if you have had H1N1 the vaccine will not provoke some type of complication or reaction.
Thanks for the advice.
David Salisbury participated in a live webchat on mumsnet recently, giving sensible and sensitive advice about H1N1 vaccination - edited version here: http://www.mumsnet.com/onlinechats/david-salisbury
However, you can (if you're feeling robust!) access the live webchat unedited from that link and there are quite a few antivaxers weighing in, and even more worrying, quoting GPs etc who - reportedly - are not going to be immunised. I know Asthma UK is worried about the potential low uptake of this vaccine, given that many of those who need to be hospitalised have asthma. If the sorts of comments on that thread are respresentative of public attitudes in general, they have good reason to be worried!
Thought you'd be interested in this editorial on what's happened with the initial vaccination roll-out in Canada: http://tinyurl.com/ygp7bj5.
Despite polls that initially indicated few Canadians would get the H1N1 vaccine, and despite the logistical nightmares that have ensued from a failure to properly organize a vaccination schedule at public clinics, we've managed to vaccinate 10% of our population in less than two weeks. Now that clinics are focusing on high risk groups first, wait times for the vaccine have dropped from four or more hours to 15 minutes in many clinics. Despite the scandal that ensued when Calgary Flames hockey team members and their wives were effectively granted a 'private, queue-jumping clinic' on October 30 - perhaps because of the public outrage over the incident - we're getting our act together here in Canada.
depressing article in Pulse -
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=23&storycode=4124190&c=2
ffs!
Very depressing to read the Pulse article, especially comments like those of Dr Liz Miller, a locum GP in London who would not recommend the vaccine to her patients because of safety concerns. "I do not intend to be vaccinated, nor will I recommend it to patients. It is untested and unnecessary. It’s time doctors started thinking for themselves instead of mindlessly obeying the Department of Health because they are terrified of missing out on free money."
Untested and unnecessary? Not recommending it to patients? Sheesh! Perhaps her attitude explains why she is only a locum.
GP surgeries have incurred considerable costs to run an additional vaccination drive for patients, entailing clerical staff, nursing staff, additional GP time, capital costs like vaccine fridges etc, and all for £5 per dose. Some practices have indicated they will not make a profit when all the costs are accounted for.
Depressing indeed. Even more depressing in our tea room today. Intelligent biomedical scientists saying things like: 'I don't think I'll have it - it's linked to that Guillain Barre thing, isn't it?'
and 'Our consultant has had the jab. He feels so bad today he had to drive in to work! He normally runs. I'll think I'll take my chances'
I can't bear to think that the bastard thing I can't get rid of might be some other random virus.
Try to look upon your infection as your contribution to global viral evolution. Strange and wonderful biological events are taking place that merit a degree of sneaky admiration. Grab a box of hankies and marvel at it, if you possibly can, bastard though it is.
;)
Get better soon!