To vaccinate or not to vaccinate
February 12, 2010 2:14 AM Subscribe
My husband and I have different opinions on whether or not the swine flu vaccine is really necessary for our two kids. What do you reckon?
My husband and I have two healthy daughters: our eldest turns five next month and our youngest is 18 months. In the last couple of days both of them have been offered a swine flu jab by our doctor. We both have divided opinions as to whether it is really necessary for them to have the vaccines. We realise that the risk from swine flu has dropped dramatically what with the arctic conditions that we've experienced in this country over the last couple of months; however, my husband thinks that when the temperatures warm up slightly, the virus could reappear. On the other hand, considering the amount of swine flu cases that were reported during the peak of the flu season, I think it's quite possible that the kids may have already been exposed to the virus and may have developed a degree of natural immunity. Now, don't get me wrong, I understand that many of those people who developed severe complications after contracting swine flu have been in the under 5s age group and I understand that these were previously healthy children but I also feel that the government is aware that they over-bought supplies of the vaccine and are now simply trying to make use of them before finding another way to get rid of them. Anybody got any thoughts?
My husband and I have two healthy daughters: our eldest turns five next month and our youngest is 18 months. In the last couple of days both of them have been offered a swine flu jab by our doctor. We both have divided opinions as to whether it is really necessary for them to have the vaccines. We realise that the risk from swine flu has dropped dramatically what with the arctic conditions that we've experienced in this country over the last couple of months; however, my husband thinks that when the temperatures warm up slightly, the virus could reappear. On the other hand, considering the amount of swine flu cases that were reported during the peak of the flu season, I think it's quite possible that the kids may have already been exposed to the virus and may have developed a degree of natural immunity. Now, don't get me wrong, I understand that many of those people who developed severe complications after contracting swine flu have been in the under 5s age group and I understand that these were previously healthy children but I also feel that the government is aware that they over-bought supplies of the vaccine and are now simply trying to make use of them before finding another way to get rid of them. Anybody got any thoughts?
Well, there's no evidence that getting the swine flu vaccine will cause your children any harm. It may or may not be necessary, but it's definitely not a high-risk procedure.
So essentially you have one parent who is concerned about the small but real risk of their children becoming seriously ill, and one parent who has...vague, unsubstantiated anti-vaccine sentiments, perhaps because the vaccine doesn't seem to be absolutely 100% skip-it-and-you'll-die essential.
It really doesn't matter who's right here: if one of you strongly believes that your children should be vaccinated, then as reasonable adults, you should make an agreement to have your children vaccinated.
posted by embrangled at 2:43 AM on February 12, 2010 [15 favorites]
So essentially you have one parent who is concerned about the small but real risk of their children becoming seriously ill, and one parent who has...vague, unsubstantiated anti-vaccine sentiments, perhaps because the vaccine doesn't seem to be absolutely 100% skip-it-and-you'll-die essential.
It really doesn't matter who's right here: if one of you strongly believes that your children should be vaccinated, then as reasonable adults, you should make an agreement to have your children vaccinated.
posted by embrangled at 2:43 AM on February 12, 2010 [15 favorites]
Yeah. Get the shots. I have a 4.5yo and a 1yo. I am very resistant to the medical attitude that "you have to do this because this is what everyone does and what the schools require." (I'm *not* anti-vacc, but I do have reasonable, medically-based questions about some of the vaccines kids get. I talk with the Doc about the relative risks and rewards of each one.)
Here's the way I usually think about these things:
1. Chances of getting X disease/condition: high or low?
(How likely is it that *my* kids will get or be exposed to H1N1? In my area and situation: HIGH)
2. Chances of getting sick if they are exposed to X disease/condition: high or low?
(Ok, they might be exposed. Will they actually get symptoms? Research seems to show that a significant (HIGH) number of people who are exposed actually get sick.)
3. Severity of sickness: high or low?
(If they get sick, how bad could it be? The effect of this illness on kids the age of my kids: HIGH, significantly more die than from normal flu.)
4. Risks associated with shot/vacc/treatment? high or low?
(Is the treatment itself likely to make them sick in some way? How likely, and how sick? In this case the vacc is equivalent to a seasonal flu shot. Those are pretty worked out in terms of safety, even if not always effective. So: LOW)
If the answers came up LOW, LOW, HIGH, HIGH, for instance, I'd debate the necessity of the vacc.
posted by cocoagirl at 3:35 AM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
Here's the way I usually think about these things:
1. Chances of getting X disease/condition: high or low?
(How likely is it that *my* kids will get or be exposed to H1N1? In my area and situation: HIGH)
2. Chances of getting sick if they are exposed to X disease/condition: high or low?
(Ok, they might be exposed. Will they actually get symptoms? Research seems to show that a significant (HIGH) number of people who are exposed actually get sick.)
3. Severity of sickness: high or low?
(If they get sick, how bad could it be? The effect of this illness on kids the age of my kids: HIGH, significantly more die than from normal flu.)
4. Risks associated with shot/vacc/treatment? high or low?
(Is the treatment itself likely to make them sick in some way? How likely, and how sick? In this case the vacc is equivalent to a seasonal flu shot. Those are pretty worked out in terms of safety, even if not always effective. So: LOW)
If the answers came up LOW, LOW, HIGH, HIGH, for instance, I'd debate the necessity of the vacc.
posted by cocoagirl at 3:35 AM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
Having had a child die of an unpreventable disease, my advice is to take the appropriate steps to prevent your child from getting diseases whenever you can do so. That's your job, as a parent, and I say that in a friendly, non-loaded way.
Younger age is associated with poorer outcomes with this disease, for example with the president of the Malaysian Medical Association saying:
"However, in the light of the very quick deterioration of some young patients who have died, it might be prudent to use antiviral treatment earlier and more aggressively." [Note: This was written before vaccine was available.]
When you say "offered a jab" by the pediatrician, my non-judgmentally-intended interpretation is that your pediatrician recommended the vaccine. The vaccine is available, shown to be effective against a disease that is dangerous and potentially deadly for young children, and apparently recommended by your pediatrician. And your big smoking guns for opposition seems to be first this:
I also feel that the government is aware that they over-bought supplies of the vaccine and are now simply trying to make use of them before finding another way to get rid of them.
Your suspicion seems to be based on your discomfort with the idea that a sufficient supply of vaccine has been developed for H1N1 and it is being used to vaccinate people against H1N1. "Make use of them"? By using them for what they are for? I just don't see a rational problem there. I don't think that's a well-considered, realistic reason to deny disease prevention. And second, an undocumented, non-evidence supported, non-medical assumption your kids have already had it. Not, apparently, even because of specific symptoms you noticed in your children or obtained medical evaluation for, but because of an article suggesting many children may have been exposed. Neither of the reasons for objection seem to present well-thought out, evidence-backed reasons for opposition.
Accordingly, I see strong evidence supporting vaccination and week arguments opposing it. Raise these questions with your pediatrician and if not much changes about the argument and then defer to the pediatrician's recommendation.
posted by bunnycup at 4:00 AM on February 12, 2010 [10 favorites]
Younger age is associated with poorer outcomes with this disease, for example with the president of the Malaysian Medical Association saying:
"However, in the light of the very quick deterioration of some young patients who have died, it might be prudent to use antiviral treatment earlier and more aggressively." [Note: This was written before vaccine was available.]
When you say "offered a jab" by the pediatrician, my non-judgmentally-intended interpretation is that your pediatrician recommended the vaccine. The vaccine is available, shown to be effective against a disease that is dangerous and potentially deadly for young children, and apparently recommended by your pediatrician. And your big smoking guns for opposition seems to be first this:
I also feel that the government is aware that they over-bought supplies of the vaccine and are now simply trying to make use of them before finding another way to get rid of them.
Your suspicion seems to be based on your discomfort with the idea that a sufficient supply of vaccine has been developed for H1N1 and it is being used to vaccinate people against H1N1. "Make use of them"? By using them for what they are for? I just don't see a rational problem there. I don't think that's a well-considered, realistic reason to deny disease prevention. And second, an undocumented, non-evidence supported, non-medical assumption your kids have already had it. Not, apparently, even because of specific symptoms you noticed in your children or obtained medical evaluation for, but because of an article suggesting many children may have been exposed. Neither of the reasons for objection seem to present well-thought out, evidence-backed reasons for opposition.
Accordingly, I see strong evidence supporting vaccination and week arguments opposing it. Raise these questions with your pediatrician and if not much changes about the argument and then defer to the pediatrician's recommendation.
posted by bunnycup at 4:00 AM on February 12, 2010 [10 favorites]
(I re-read my comment above and I am nervous it sounds just very judgmental. I said protecting your children from disease when you can is part of your job as a parent. Thinking critically and weighing pros and cons and being an active participant in your child's care, like you are doing here by asking questions and thinking about the options, is part of your job as a parent, too. I just wanted to add that, to mitigate what can be perceived as either harshness or emotional guilt-tripping in my answer.)
posted by bunnycup at 4:11 AM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by bunnycup at 4:11 AM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
My kids had H1N1 before the vaccine was available around here and it was a pretty miserable week for each of them. They're teens so presumably less at risk than little kids but we had planned on getting the shots had that been possible. We have not routinely gotten flu shots but would have gotten the H1N1 because it seems to be more risky for kids than is typical of flu. Additional food for thought - if you spend time with anyone who is immuno-compromised, frail or very elderly you are increasing their risk if you don't get immunized.
posted by leslies at 4:45 AM on February 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by leslies at 4:45 AM on February 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
It is possible that getting the H1N1 vaccine now is a little like closing the barn door after the horse is gone. That will be little comfort if you all come down with it.
Personally, I'd make sure everyone's vaccinations against all those things that don't go away year by year are up to date before I worried about any flu vaccine. After that, defer to the logic above.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 4:53 AM on February 12, 2010
Personally, I'd make sure everyone's vaccinations against all those things that don't go away year by year are up to date before I worried about any flu vaccine. After that, defer to the logic above.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 4:53 AM on February 12, 2010
When my partner and I were discussing our, and our 2.5yo's, not getting the H1N1 jab, one thing that came up were the risks involved. Oh, everyone sighs, an anti-vax loon, probably has some fantasy about it causing autism or something... No. What risks did we consider? The risk of getting a bad batch of the vaccine (even if the remedy was no more complicated than getting a second shot, still -- a risk), the risk of a painful injection, the risk of simply feeling bad. These risks may seem trivial, but then, so are the odds of your children dying from H1N1. If you have a long drive to the doctor's office I suspect the odds are greater that they will be injured in a crash on the way to get the shot, than that the shot would prove to be lifesaving.
posted by kmennie at 5:07 AM on February 12, 2010
posted by kmennie at 5:07 AM on February 12, 2010
Just a counterpoint to those who said they had adverse reactions to the vaccine: I had one and didn't get sick at all.
I usually don't get vaccinated against such things because I'm lazy, but my husband can't be vaccinated because of an egg allergy and figured, with the swine flu, it seems more prudent to just go ahead and have it done. If I had kids under 5 I'd definitely be vaccinating them, too--not just for them, but for anyone they might come in contact with who can't be vaccinated.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 5:14 AM on February 12, 2010
I usually don't get vaccinated against such things because I'm lazy, but my husband can't be vaccinated because of an egg allergy and figured, with the swine flu, it seems more prudent to just go ahead and have it done. If I had kids under 5 I'd definitely be vaccinating them, too--not just for them, but for anyone they might come in contact with who can't be vaccinated.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 5:14 AM on February 12, 2010
The risk of getting a bad batch of the vaccine [ . . . ] the risk of a painful injection.
The second and third items you cite don't sound like risks at all to me, particularly as flu mists are available if you're worried about injection pain. I was vaccinated with a mist. It made my nose run for about an hour.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 5:18 AM on February 12, 2010
The second and third items you cite don't sound like risks at all to me, particularly as flu mists are available if you're worried about injection pain. I was vaccinated with a mist. It made my nose run for about an hour.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 5:18 AM on February 12, 2010
Just a caution: I'm not sure the vaccine is approved for infants. Check before you go ahead. But if anything, that's even more of an incentive to get the older one vaccinated.
posted by valkyryn at 5:23 AM on February 12, 2010
posted by valkyryn at 5:23 AM on February 12, 2010
I had a flu in January. It laid me out for about three weeks. Only last week did I get any color back in my skin.
I suspect it was swine flu, because it was so much worse than any flu i've ever had. By that I mean: not one week of symptoms, but three. Not some of the flu symptoms, but every single one.
I wish I had paid $40 for the jab, because the one urgent care visit totals $700, and I have 3 weeks of missed work and job hunting.
So, I think you, your husband, and your kids should get the shot.
posted by bilabial at 5:31 AM on February 12, 2010
I suspect it was swine flu, because it was so much worse than any flu i've ever had. By that I mean: not one week of symptoms, but three. Not some of the flu symptoms, but every single one.
I wish I had paid $40 for the jab, because the one urgent care visit totals $700, and I have 3 weeks of missed work and job hunting.
So, I think you, your husband, and your kids should get the shot.
posted by bilabial at 5:31 AM on February 12, 2010
Another anecdote to counterpoint the adverse reactions: I had the regular flu shot and the H1N1 because I'm pregnant, and felt 100% fine after both. The H1N1 injection site was a little sore after, but no big deal at all. And I have not had any flu symptoms at all this winter, yay! The shots were well worth it for me, especially after being hit by a really bad flu or flu-like-thing over the summer that really sucked. I'm a big fan of modern medicine and not getting sick if I can reasonably avoid it.
posted by banjo_and_the_pork at 5:42 AM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by banjo_and_the_pork at 5:42 AM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
Here are the CDC recommendations. They include vaccinations for kids 6 months and older. They have late season recommendations on that page as well.
Of a household of 4, I was the only one to not get the flu this year. I had the seasonal vaccine at the time and only just now was able to get the H1N1 vaccine. DH had no vaccines. Kiddo 1 had both and kiddo 2 had seasonal only. All three of them ended up with H1N1 and it was a hellish 9 days of illness for them.
Get the vaccines. Even if you've not yet had H1N1, flu season is not over.
posted by onhazier at 5:49 AM on February 12, 2010
Of a household of 4, I was the only one to not get the flu this year. I had the seasonal vaccine at the time and only just now was able to get the H1N1 vaccine. DH had no vaccines. Kiddo 1 had both and kiddo 2 had seasonal only. All three of them ended up with H1N1 and it was a hellish 9 days of illness for them.
Get the vaccines. Even if you've not yet had H1N1, flu season is not over.
posted by onhazier at 5:49 AM on February 12, 2010
Excellent points above. To add to cocoagirl's decision making plan, I also wish to point out the fact that by vaccinating your kids you are protecting other people, particularly people who cannot, for whatever reason, get vaccines. I wish more people would put that at a higher priority.
posted by gaspode at 6:11 AM on February 12, 2010 [11 favorites]
posted by gaspode at 6:11 AM on February 12, 2010 [11 favorites]
You've clearly never had a bad case of the flu. When you get really nailed by it, you go to bed at night wondering if (AND HOPING THAT) you will die in your sleep. Having a young child get the flu is truly terrifying. Get them vaccinated.
Vaccines carry risks, but the risks are lower than your kid eating a medium-rare hamburger. We're talking about one in a million type risks, which are so insignificant that your brain can't even process it. It's ten-thousand times more likely that they'll die in a car accident in their lifetimes than that this flu vaccine will kill them. A thousand times more likely that they'll die of food poisoning. A ten times more likely to die of a bee sting.
You get the idea. You're taking a one in a million (if that) risk for a 50% reduction in the odds of getting a disease that kills one in 6,000 to 15,000 people each year. Simple math.
posted by paanta at 6:15 AM on February 12, 2010 [5 favorites]
Vaccines carry risks, but the risks are lower than your kid eating a medium-rare hamburger. We're talking about one in a million type risks, which are so insignificant that your brain can't even process it. It's ten-thousand times more likely that they'll die in a car accident in their lifetimes than that this flu vaccine will kill them. A thousand times more likely that they'll die of food poisoning. A ten times more likely to die of a bee sting.
You get the idea. You're taking a one in a million (if that) risk for a 50% reduction in the odds of getting a disease that kills one in 6,000 to 15,000 people each year. Simple math.
posted by paanta at 6:15 AM on February 12, 2010 [5 favorites]
Think long term, too. This version of the flu has been coming around every 30-40 years. The reason that elderly people did so well was because they had immunity from the last time.
So yes, there's a good chance your kids have been exposed, and yes, there's a good chance the worst of the epidemic this year is over. But they weren't exposed to a very large dose because if they had, they would have gotten sick. That means that although they've got enough memory cells running around now, they *may* not have enough to sustain long term immunity. In theory once you have memory cells you always have memory cells but in reality that doesn't always work (that's why you have to get tetanus boosters.)
Either they have memory cells or they don't. If you vaccinate them, you're either triggering the growth of the memory cells they don't have if they weren't exposed or you're stimulating the few memory cells they do have if they were exposed to go through another round or two of division. Either way, you're trying to make those memory cells more permanent. You're trying to protect them against a pandemic 30 or 40 years from now, when they might be pregnant, or have their own under-fives, or have asthma, or live in a mad max post apocalyptic world.
Also, artificial and natural immunity have the same effect from where the body's concerned. In both cases, little phagocytes destroy the antigen and hold trophies out like bloody heads to go find the right antibody-producing cells to activate. It doesn't matter whether I get attacked by my own barbarians or buy pre-cut bloody heads from the Etruscans, the effect on the king will be the same. What matters is that the king needs to see lots of bloody heads before he authorizes the attack.
posted by arabelladragon at 6:51 AM on February 12, 2010 [4 favorites]
So yes, there's a good chance your kids have been exposed, and yes, there's a good chance the worst of the epidemic this year is over. But they weren't exposed to a very large dose because if they had, they would have gotten sick. That means that although they've got enough memory cells running around now, they *may* not have enough to sustain long term immunity. In theory once you have memory cells you always have memory cells but in reality that doesn't always work (that's why you have to get tetanus boosters.)
Either they have memory cells or they don't. If you vaccinate them, you're either triggering the growth of the memory cells they don't have if they weren't exposed or you're stimulating the few memory cells they do have if they were exposed to go through another round or two of division. Either way, you're trying to make those memory cells more permanent. You're trying to protect them against a pandemic 30 or 40 years from now, when they might be pregnant, or have their own under-fives, or have asthma, or live in a mad max post apocalyptic world.
Also, artificial and natural immunity have the same effect from where the body's concerned. In both cases, little phagocytes destroy the antigen and hold trophies out like bloody heads to go find the right antibody-producing cells to activate. It doesn't matter whether I get attacked by my own barbarians or buy pre-cut bloody heads from the Etruscans, the effect on the king will be the same. What matters is that the king needs to see lots of bloody heads before he authorizes the attack.
posted by arabelladragon at 6:51 AM on February 12, 2010 [4 favorites]
1. you're right in saying that the numbers have declined. Reports are expecting another rise though soon.
2. I think the questions on whether or not to get it are:
a) are you traveling on a plane (incident contracting high)
b) do either of your children have a history of lung issues such as recurrent bronchiolitis? Complications if they get any flu can arise
c) are either a preemie? Again, complications if that is the case.
I think the incidences of having a reaction is rare but note that this reaction they're talking about can happen with any vaccine. And from what our ped said, the H1N1 was supposed to be rolled into the regular flu shot but due to mass demand and outbreak, there wasn't time.
At first we were scared about giving our son the shot. But after realizing that he had severe RSV, hospitalization, etc at 6 weeks and then again at 3 months, he's in a higher risk group. Every minor sniffle goes right to his lungs and he gets severe bronchiolitis. So for him, the risk of things forming into pneumonia or worse are high, thus we vaccinated him and don't regret it one bit.
It's really a personal choice as well as thinking about how healthy your child is and can respond to getting the flu. If yours bounces back, then it's up to you. But if they're on the tad sensitive side, I would give them the vaccine. Both me and my husband got our regular flu shot so we wouldn't get our son sick. We didn't get the H1N1. First there wasn't a supply for us (not a risk category) and now, honestly, I don't know why we don't. Maybe we think that since our son is vaccinated, who cares about us?
Good luck and stay healthy.
posted by stormpooper at 6:54 AM on February 12, 2010
2. I think the questions on whether or not to get it are:
a) are you traveling on a plane (incident contracting high)
b) do either of your children have a history of lung issues such as recurrent bronchiolitis? Complications if they get any flu can arise
c) are either a preemie? Again, complications if that is the case.
I think the incidences of having a reaction is rare but note that this reaction they're talking about can happen with any vaccine. And from what our ped said, the H1N1 was supposed to be rolled into the regular flu shot but due to mass demand and outbreak, there wasn't time.
At first we were scared about giving our son the shot. But after realizing that he had severe RSV, hospitalization, etc at 6 weeks and then again at 3 months, he's in a higher risk group. Every minor sniffle goes right to his lungs and he gets severe bronchiolitis. So for him, the risk of things forming into pneumonia or worse are high, thus we vaccinated him and don't regret it one bit.
It's really a personal choice as well as thinking about how healthy your child is and can respond to getting the flu. If yours bounces back, then it's up to you. But if they're on the tad sensitive side, I would give them the vaccine. Both me and my husband got our regular flu shot so we wouldn't get our son sick. We didn't get the H1N1. First there wasn't a supply for us (not a risk category) and now, honestly, I don't know why we don't. Maybe we think that since our son is vaccinated, who cares about us?
Good luck and stay healthy.
posted by stormpooper at 6:54 AM on February 12, 2010
I understand that many of those people who developed severe complications after contracting swine flu have been in the under 5s age group and I understand that these were previously healthy children but I also feel that the government is aware that they over-bought supplies of the vaccine and are now simply trying to make use of them before finding another way to get rid of them.
With all the gentleness I can muster, I have to point out that this sentence makes no sense, and if it's at the core of your concerns, you really need to reconsider your position. Your first and second points point out the risks to young kids from swine flu. You appear to agree that those risks are real, and that they affect kids who are otherwise healthy. So far, so good. Your third point, however, doesn't follow, nor does it make sense in itself. It doesn't follow because it has no bearing on the risks or severity of the swine flu. It's about something else entirely, and therefore doesn't logically negate your first two points. In other words, an overabundance of available vaccine does not make the swine flu, if contracted, less dangerous to kids under five, or to otherwise healthy kids.
But, and I think this is equally important, your third claim, even if true, is an ad hominem logical fallacy in the context of your argument. The existence of too much vaccine has no bearing at all on either the dangers of swine flu or the relative safety of vaccination. You appear to be saying that you don't want your kids to get the vaccine because, even though there is danger from the flu, someone made an accounting error. None of your other stated objections have mentioned concerns about the safety or efficacy of the vaccine.
I can understand concerns over keeping your children safe and happy, concerns which encompass making sure they are not subjected to unnecessary medical treatment. But the necessity of that treatment should be judged based on the risks and rewards of the treatment itself, not extraneous supply-side information.
posted by OmieWise at 6:59 AM on February 12, 2010 [5 favorites]
With all the gentleness I can muster, I have to point out that this sentence makes no sense, and if it's at the core of your concerns, you really need to reconsider your position. Your first and second points point out the risks to young kids from swine flu. You appear to agree that those risks are real, and that they affect kids who are otherwise healthy. So far, so good. Your third point, however, doesn't follow, nor does it make sense in itself. It doesn't follow because it has no bearing on the risks or severity of the swine flu. It's about something else entirely, and therefore doesn't logically negate your first two points. In other words, an overabundance of available vaccine does not make the swine flu, if contracted, less dangerous to kids under five, or to otherwise healthy kids.
But, and I think this is equally important, your third claim, even if true, is an ad hominem logical fallacy in the context of your argument. The existence of too much vaccine has no bearing at all on either the dangers of swine flu or the relative safety of vaccination. You appear to be saying that you don't want your kids to get the vaccine because, even though there is danger from the flu, someone made an accounting error. None of your other stated objections have mentioned concerns about the safety or efficacy of the vaccine.
I can understand concerns over keeping your children safe and happy, concerns which encompass making sure they are not subjected to unnecessary medical treatment. But the necessity of that treatment should be judged based on the risks and rewards of the treatment itself, not extraneous supply-side information.
posted by OmieWise at 6:59 AM on February 12, 2010 [5 favorites]
Get the shot.
I'm generally pro-vaccines and flu shots. I'm not really high risk myself and would more than probably live through the flu. However, I'm also aware that I'm constantly in contact with other people some of whom I'm aware of (like my students and friends and colleagues) and some who I'm not (like people who get on the elevator after I do, and people on the subway who hold the same pole). Most of these people are also healthy can could survive the flu, but some aren't. One of my students has cancer. A former student had a preemie at home and I'm sure there are many people I don't know about who visit aged grandparents, have infants (your kids' friends may have infant siblings) or who work or volunteer in hospitals or old age homes. I don't want to give any of those people the flu, but without the shot I'd be risking it.
That said, I did not get the shot this year. Just stupid lazy carelessness. I suppose I still could and should. I have not had the flu, but I can't tell you how many times I have regretted not getting the shot this year. Early lt month my uncle fell ill and was hospitalized. I visited him more-or-less daily and every time I went into that hospital I remembered that I hadn't been vaccinated and I was in a building full of high-risk people including my uncle. A couple of weeks later he was transferred to critical care (in this hospital that's a step sicker than ICU) and was on a ventilator. Again, walking into that room e 40 super-sick people (it's an open-concept ward so hoards of doctors and machines can rush to patients when necessary without walls as obstacles) I kicked myself every time for the risk I was creating. My uncle passed last Wednesday.
And to all of you who unlike me did get vaccinated: Thank you. As far as I know I did not bring the flu to anyone in that hospital or critical care ward and if that's the case, it may well be thanks to you that I wasn't exposed. We'll never know how many lives you saved. Please get the shot. You'll never know if you saved a life but you well could.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:09 AM on February 12, 2010
I'm generally pro-vaccines and flu shots. I'm not really high risk myself and would more than probably live through the flu. However, I'm also aware that I'm constantly in contact with other people some of whom I'm aware of (like my students and friends and colleagues) and some who I'm not (like people who get on the elevator after I do, and people on the subway who hold the same pole). Most of these people are also healthy can could survive the flu, but some aren't. One of my students has cancer. A former student had a preemie at home and I'm sure there are many people I don't know about who visit aged grandparents, have infants (your kids' friends may have infant siblings) or who work or volunteer in hospitals or old age homes. I don't want to give any of those people the flu, but without the shot I'd be risking it.
That said, I did not get the shot this year. Just stupid lazy carelessness. I suppose I still could and should. I have not had the flu, but I can't tell you how many times I have regretted not getting the shot this year. Early lt month my uncle fell ill and was hospitalized. I visited him more-or-less daily and every time I went into that hospital I remembered that I hadn't been vaccinated and I was in a building full of high-risk people including my uncle. A couple of weeks later he was transferred to critical care (in this hospital that's a step sicker than ICU) and was on a ventilator. Again, walking into that room e 40 super-sick people (it's an open-concept ward so hoards of doctors and machines can rush to patients when necessary without walls as obstacles) I kicked myself every time for the risk I was creating. My uncle passed last Wednesday.
And to all of you who unlike me did get vaccinated: Thank you. As far as I know I did not bring the flu to anyone in that hospital or critical care ward and if that's the case, it may well be thanks to you that I wasn't exposed. We'll never know how many lives you saved. Please get the shot. You'll never know if you saved a life but you well could.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:09 AM on February 12, 2010
Oh, one more thing. This is a pet peeve of mine: The fact that the swine flu has not killed millions of people IS NOT evidence that the risk was over-estimated. Since we have no control world, we do not know what would have happened if no vaccine had been developed and no one had been vaccinated. It's entirely possible that we vaccinated the person in whom the virus would have mutated into something truly deadly or the person who would have exposed that person. The problem with preventative measures is that if they work you'll never know it. To say "look it's not so bad, therefore there was no need for the fuss" is like saying "Dammit, I lived to be 120 years old. If I'd known I wasn't going to get cancer or heart disease I would never have eaten so healthy!"
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:14 AM on February 12, 2010 [5 favorites]
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:14 AM on February 12, 2010 [5 favorites]
All available medical advice points towards getting the vaccinations if they are available. There is no medical reason to not get vaccinated. The herd immunity idea is a reason to get vaccinated even if you think for some reason you may win the flu roulette this year. I got vaccinated last week which was about the earliest point that i could have since we had vaccine shortages where I live. I had asthma and I was slightly nervous about having to wait so long. Get vaccinated. There is no medical reason to not get vaccinated.
posted by jessamyn at 7:17 AM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by jessamyn at 7:17 AM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
I am currently working on 4 trials (3 observational/1 experimental medication) of H1N1. Flu season is not over. There has been a decrease in numbers but we expect another peak. Children are not doing well with this virus. Get them vaccinated.
posted by Sophie1 at 7:34 AM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Sophie1 at 7:34 AM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
As someone else upthread mentioned, I wish that more people would understand that the decision to be vaccinated is not all about them...it's also a step towards protecting those around you who, for medically valid reasons, can't be vaccinated.
It's not just to protect your and your children (which, IMNSHO, should be enough of a reason of itself), but also to add to the general herd immunity to the disease.
But, even failing the "caring about other people" test, the risk/reward measure for vaccinations, especially for children, always falls on the vaccination side.
posted by griffey at 8:21 AM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
It's not just to protect your and your children (which, IMNSHO, should be enough of a reason of itself), but also to add to the general herd immunity to the disease.
But, even failing the "caring about other people" test, the risk/reward measure for vaccinations, especially for children, always falls on the vaccination side.
posted by griffey at 8:21 AM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
Nthing get the vaccine.
Our family doctor (25+ years as a doctor and who is very-very friendly to alternative and non-vax families and who is reserved on prescribing antibiotics) has fully recommended the swine flu vaccine for all patients with a little more gusto than usual. This is the family doctor who told us without us asking that she thought the Hep B at birth was not necessary for our son and told us her recommendation as a physician was to delay it for her patients until they were older, but other than that, she recommends full vaccination of course. But for the swine flu, she has been incredibly gung-ho about making sure all of her patients under 25 years of age get it. She has also said she fully expects to see an increase in swine flu again once the seasonal flu is on the downswing, and she, like Sophie1, is expecting another seasonal flu peak, too.
We got it for our 12 month old son. He gets the booster shot sometime next week. Let me tell you, he had both the croup and bronchiolitis last week. Going to the ER for a couple of hours for a nebulizer treatment and observation was difficult enough. Going because of a high fever, dehydration, not eating, or anything else associated with the swine flu sounds like it would be a lot more frightening. The vaccine is much easier than dealing with anything like that.
posted by zizzle at 8:31 AM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
Our family doctor (25+ years as a doctor and who is very-very friendly to alternative and non-vax families and who is reserved on prescribing antibiotics) has fully recommended the swine flu vaccine for all patients with a little more gusto than usual. This is the family doctor who told us without us asking that she thought the Hep B at birth was not necessary for our son and told us her recommendation as a physician was to delay it for her patients until they were older, but other than that, she recommends full vaccination of course. But for the swine flu, she has been incredibly gung-ho about making sure all of her patients under 25 years of age get it. She has also said she fully expects to see an increase in swine flu again once the seasonal flu is on the downswing, and she, like Sophie1, is expecting another seasonal flu peak, too.
We got it for our 12 month old son. He gets the booster shot sometime next week. Let me tell you, he had both the croup and bronchiolitis last week. Going to the ER for a couple of hours for a nebulizer treatment and observation was difficult enough. Going because of a high fever, dehydration, not eating, or anything else associated with the swine flu sounds like it would be a lot more frightening. The vaccine is much easier than dealing with anything like that.
posted by zizzle at 8:31 AM on February 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
Our then-19-month old got the H1N1 in December. When I suggested to the ped that she may have already been exposed to it since both she and I had had a pretty bad flu in the weeks before, the ped still recommending getting it because you don't really know if they were exposed.
posted by otherwordlyglow at 10:45 AM on February 12, 2010
posted by otherwordlyglow at 10:45 AM on February 12, 2010
Mod note: few comments removed - this really isn't a survey.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:45 AM on February 12, 2010
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:45 AM on February 12, 2010
I got both flu shots this year, and had no adverse reactions at all. All of my coworkers got them too (we work in a hospital) and none of them had any adverse reactions.
It looks like only kch and kmennie have said they would not get the vaccine in your situation. However, both of them appear to live in Canada, where a severe case of the flu requiring hospitalization would not cost them anything except time away from work. Something to keep in mind.
posted by nprigoda at 10:49 AM on February 12, 2010
It looks like only kch and kmennie have said they would not get the vaccine in your situation. However, both of them appear to live in Canada, where a severe case of the flu requiring hospitalization would not cost them anything except time away from work. Something to keep in mind.
posted by nprigoda at 10:49 AM on February 12, 2010
My pediatrician is also open to alternate schedules of vaccines, and non-vax families. I've always been a believer in vaccines, but my wife has questioned most of them, though has compromised with me and we spread out the regular vaccine schedule.
With regards to the flu shots though, our doctor strongly recommended both seasonal and H1N1 vaccines because of the particular risks to children from flu. We took his advice and got our 18-month old child the shots. There were no visible side-effects or complications.
posted by Roger Dodger at 10:54 AM on February 12, 2010
With regards to the flu shots though, our doctor strongly recommended both seasonal and H1N1 vaccines because of the particular risks to children from flu. We took his advice and got our 18-month old child the shots. There were no visible side-effects or complications.
posted by Roger Dodger at 10:54 AM on February 12, 2010
I just want to reiterate the point for you that someone made above about herd immunity.
Do any of your children go to anything resembling school?
If yes, they will likely get exposed to this virus there. Children are walking slobbering disease vectors, even if they aren't showing symptoms. At many a daycare, the toys go pretty much from one mouth to another, all day long. Kids put their fingers in their noses and then accidentally poke their best buddy in the eye.
Yuck.
And then there is the standard vaccine response: I'm going to have my (unconceived) kidlets vaccinated to protect the herd, so I appreciate that the herd vaccinates theirs to protect mine.
(And I offer an apology to anyone I may have infected with my flu, because I was in denial about it being flu for three days. And then one morning I couldn't really get out of bed, because I was Still. So. Tired.)
posted by bilabial at 1:21 PM on February 12, 2010
Do any of your children go to anything resembling school?
If yes, they will likely get exposed to this virus there. Children are walking slobbering disease vectors, even if they aren't showing symptoms. At many a daycare, the toys go pretty much from one mouth to another, all day long. Kids put their fingers in their noses and then accidentally poke their best buddy in the eye.
Yuck.
And then there is the standard vaccine response: I'm going to have my (unconceived) kidlets vaccinated to protect the herd, so I appreciate that the herd vaccinates theirs to protect mine.
(And I offer an apology to anyone I may have infected with my flu, because I was in denial about it being flu for three days. And then one morning I couldn't really get out of bed, because I was Still. So. Tired.)
posted by bilabial at 1:21 PM on February 12, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
Several weeks later, me and the other regular flu shot kid got H1N1, and it was an experience I wouldn't wish on anyone. We were both in an achy, coughing, feverish twilight for about 5 days and then were both knocked completely out for two weeks. I mean, 14 days into it, she still couldn't go to school because she was sleeping all day. Months later, we're both still tired (and I had even posted a while back that I had become so weirdly swollen that my eyes got bizarrely baggy and puffy).
Not that this is representative of the experiences of others, but this was hands down the worst flu I've ever had.
I'd say, get the shot. That flu was bad.
posted by dzaz at 2:37 AM on February 12, 2010 [2 favorites]