 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / December 2003A little confused -- this flu thing???
Am I missing something? (Don't answer that...) Every year we have the flu. Right? And every year people are told to get flu shots if they are at high risk. And most of the rest of us, by and large, don't bother. So WHY... this year, is EVERYONE being told to get flu shots, with the result that people who ARE at high risk, can't get them? I'd been a bit lax about getting Shaina in for hers (just kept forgetting to call, and time got away from me.) She has always gotten one, due to her asthma. So, I finally call Monday, and am told that, due to high demand, they are competely out of the vaccine. (the few doses they had left were already spoken for by people who had already called -- while I'd spent all morning trying to get through on the phone -- I feel sorry for any parent who had an actual medical emergency that morning.) I point out that, due to her asthma, she really needs the vaccine, and the doctor wants her to have it. Too bad. I should call back later in the week, in the hopes that they will have more vaccine in by then. So... what am I missing? WHY have the parents of 1500 local children suddenly decided, in the past two weeks that THEIR healthy kids need flu shots? (In past years I've never had the slightest difficulty, and I've usually, IIRC, done it in late November or early December -- often as part of her annual check-up.) Naomi CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator (either remove spamblock or change address to npardue@indiana.edu to e-mail reply.) Weren't people in high risk groups supposed to have gotten them several months ago? Then the leftovers would have been for the lower-risk people. In non-severe flu years, those lower-risk people would have been okay with no shot, but they say this is a bad year. SO............shots for all! > Am I missing something? (Don't answer that...) > Every year we have the flu. Right? And every year people are told to get [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > (either remove spamblock or change address to npardue@indiana.edu to > e-mail reply.) > Am I missing something? (Don't answer that...) > Every year we have the flu. Right? And every year people are told to get flu [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > done it in late November or early December -- often as part of her annual > check-up.) Because this year is supposed to be particularly bad. Several children have already died. It's been all over the news. > > Am I missing something? (Don't answer that...) > > Every year we have the flu. Right? And every year people are told to get flu [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Because this year is supposed to be particularly bad. Several > children have already died. It's been all over the news. I think mainly because it has been hyped up in the media. Not that children dying isn't worth the hype, but from what I've read most of the deaths have been children with pre-existing complications that warrant getting first dibs on the flu shot (like asthma) in the first place. It seems a little skewed to me, as well, since 'at risk' individuals die of the flu in surprisingly large numbers every year. I'm not sure this year is terribly different, except for more media coverage and thus more paranoia. The drug company that makes the vaccine certainly has a lot to gain from inciting the masses. I think it would be interesting to see scientific documentation on the severity of this year's flu, number of deaths, etc versus previous years, rather than relying on news media's interpretation of such data. cara > I think mainly because it has been hyped up in the media. Not that > children dying isn't worth the hype, but from what I've read most of the > deaths have been children with pre-existing complications that warrant > getting first dibs on the flu shot (like asthma) in the first place. Actually, from what I have read, most of the children who have been dying from the flu this year have otherwise been healthy. Many of the children aren't actually dying from the flu, but from staph infections that normally wouldn't kill them. It is something the CDC says it has not previously seen in influenza outbreaks. >It seems a little skewed to me, as well, since 'at risk' individuals >die of the flu in surprisingly large numbers every year. I'm not sure >this year is terribly different, Other than the outbreaks are much earlier and widespread than in other years, raising concerns that it could be a pandemic year. > except for more media coverage and thus more paranoia. Well, you know, I think its sort of ironic. The media have been blowing other diseases (e.g. West Nile and SARS) way out of proportion in the US, and I've been comparing those diseases with an average year of deaths from influenza (influenza wins out, hands down) and wondering why they don't make more of a big deal out of the flu than they do. Not that I think they *should* be making a big deal out of it, necessarily, mind you.... >The drug company that makes the vaccine certainly has a lot to gain >from inciting the masses. I think it would be interesting to see >scientific documentation on the severity of this year's flu, number of >deaths, etc versus previous years, rather than relying on news media's >interpretation of such data. I think that would be interesting to see as well, unfortunately, that information comes too late for those weighing the risks of getting a vaccination or waiting and seeing if it *is* as bad a flu as the media claims. Take care, Kate -- reply to mountainspring at softhome dot net > ... The drug company that makes the vaccine certainly has a lot to > gain from inciting the masses. not really. the vaccine is all made and all sold before the flu season begins. the sales reps come to the doctors offices long, long before flu season and the doctor has to order what they feel they will need. then the doctor has to hope that they will receive what they ordered. it takes a long time to create the vaccine, and that is why it is possible to run out. when what they made is gone, there won't be more till next season. (i get this information from my father, a family doctor in Georgia.) so, unless a really bad flu season like this increases doctor demand for shots next year, the vaccine makers earn no more money than they otherwise would. -- -- Vicki Married DH May 21, 1995 Ima shel DS, born 11/16/99; and DD, born 5/19/02. "Stay-at-home" Ima since October 2002. An ounce of mother is worth a pound of clergy. -Spanish proverb I may not currently be pregnant, but I look pregnant, does that count? >most of the deaths have been children with pre-existing >complications that warrant getting first dibs on the flu shot >(like asthma) in the first place. The reports I heard had at least 2 children who were otherwise healthy dying from this flu. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > >most of the deaths have been children with pre-existing > >complications that warrant getting first dibs on the flu shot > >(like asthma) in the first place. > > The reports I heard had at least 2 children who were otherwise > healthy dying from this flu. I've heard that the kids were either 1) older than 24 months but had chronic conditions that may have put them in the higher risk category, or 2) were healthy but between the ages of 6 and 24 months who I guess are harder hit by the flu when they get it. Jeanne >> >most of the deaths have been children with pre-existing >> >complications that warrant getting first dibs on the flu shot [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Jeanne 2 out of the 4 in Colorado were said to be healthy. One was 10 years old, I believe. The other was 2. But neither had any health conditions that would have put them in the high risk category. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits >I've heard that the kids were either 1) older than 24 months but had >chronic conditions that may have put them in the higher risk category, >or 2) were healthy but between the ages of 6 and 24 months who I guess >are harder hit by the flu when they get it. > >Jeanne This from my neck of the woods, btw. A 2-year-old boy died Monday at Evanston Hospital, and a preliminary test found the flu virus. However, results from a more conclusive test won't be available until next week. The vast majority who die from flu are over age 65 or have chronic health problems. The odds a healthy child will die from flu are "extremely minimal -- almost nonexistent," said Dr. Jeff Mjaanes, a Rush University Medical Center pediatrician. About the Colorado deaths: http://www.cp.org/english/online/full/health/031126/x112632A.html The parents of one of the flu victims, eight-year-old Joseph Williams, went on TV with their story Tuesday night in hopes other parents would take sick children to the doctor. "It happened so quick and so sudden," Scott Williams said. "He was fine. He wasn't even that sick." "He just flat-lined and he looked at me," Carrieann Williams said. "Nobody could believe it happened." Health experts said it will take time to determine whether this flu season will be especially dangerous for children. "This is something that we are studying and are certainly are concerned about," said Dr. Scott Harper, infectious- diseases physician for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "But it's likely this is something that's been going on for years and we just have not recognized it before." The deaths in Colorado are "a little bit out of the ordinary," said Dr. William Schaffner, chairman of Vanderbilt Medical Center's department of preventive medicine in Nashville, Tenn. "I think it's a manifestation of this H3N2 strain which causes more serious disease." The deaths underscore an often-overlooked fact: Flu can be deadly in children. Each year, an estimated 36,000 Americans - mainly the elderly - die from the flu. Health officials do not know how many children die, because states do not require doctors to report influenza cases. "In general, people look as influenza as a benign illness like a common cold when in fact it's a serious illness," Harper said. The flu can cause pneumonia and other respiratory problems, heart failure and heart muscle inflammation in infants. Last month, a CDC advisory panel recommended that children six months to 23 months old receive flu shots, since this age group has as great a risk of hospitalization from the flu as the elderly. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > Last month, a CDC advisory panel recommended that > children six months to 23 months old receive flu shots, > since this age group has as great a risk of hospitalization > from the flu as the elderly. This recommendation was given for the first time a year ago, actually, not just last month. That was why I had Julie get the shot last year.  SignatureCheryl S. Mom to Julie, 2 yr., 8 mo. And Jaden, 3 months Cleaning the house while your children are small is like shoveling the sidewalk while it's still snowing. > Am I missing something? (Don't answer that...) > Every year we have the flu. Right? And every year people are told to get flu [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Naomi > CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator because this year this strand of flu is making normal staph infections fatal, in otherwise healthy children. How is the influenza virus making bacterial staph infections fatal? I had not heard this. > because this year this strand of flu is making normal staph infections > fatal, in otherwise healthy children. > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- > How is the influenza virus making bacterial staph infections fatal? I had > not heard this. From what I've heard, it has to do with the fact that the flu strain is so strong that it is weakening people's immune systems so that they are not able to fight off the secondary staph infection the way they otherwise might. Take care, Kate Signaturereply to mountainspring at softhome dot net >>How is the influenza virus making bacterial staph infections fatal? I had >>not heard this. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Take care, > Kate That's the way the flu always kills. The flu never (never say "never", right? :-) kills you directly, some secondary infection kills you - usually pneumonia. /dan > >>How is the influenza virus making bacterial staph infections fatal? I had > >>not heard this. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > /dan in the 1918 pandemic this was not apparently true -- my grandmother died within 12 hours of coming down with it -- and that is apparenlty not unusual -- the flu itself killed people -- she was a healthy 25 year old woman > in the 1918 pandemic this was not apparently true -- my grandmother died > within 12 hours of coming down with it -- and that is apparenlty not > unusual -- the flu itself killed people -- she was a healthy 25 year old > woman From what I know about this specific outbreak, it was exceptional in many ways. Not only did it spread faster, the viral strain was also very agressive. But that's just what I recall from a documentary I saw last year. There were many more factors. In a way it surprises me that people are so flabbergasted by the intensity of the flu this year. All in all, the influenza virus with its many strains and mutations is still among the potentially most dangerous illnesses for mankind. Nevertheless, many people seem to believe that its 'just' the flu, so no big deal. Signature-- I mommy to DS (17m) mommy of a tiny angel (Oct 2003) guardian of DH (32) TTC #2.5 War doesn't decide who's right, only who's left > > in the 1918 pandemic this was not apparently true -- my grandmother died > > within 12 hours of coming down with it -- and that is apparenlty not [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > most dangerous illnesses for mankind. Nevertheless, many people > seem to believe that its 'just' the flu, so no big deal. I think it is because people label so many minor illnesses 'the flu' e.g. stomach flu which is not flu -- usually either norwalk or food poisoning and many bad colds are called 'flu' by people who have them the real deal kills tens of thousands in the US in a good year -- and among that number are a few children -- the surprising thing this year seems to be the number of deaths among previously healthy children -- we don't know if this will prove to be unusually high in the long run of course until the season is over it is hard to tell if the current flu hysteria is a media event [like the bogus child abduction hysteria in which newscasters earnestly tell us that a child disappears every 20 second -- when the fact is that probably fewer than 100 are abducted in a year] or the real deal > I think it is because people label so many minor illnesses 'the flu' Agreed. But it's not only the people, it's the doctors too. Many times I've been told I had 'just a flu' when it was really only a bad cold or nothing serious at all. > it is hard to tell if the current flu hysteria is a media event > or the real deal I suppose you never know until it's over. That's why I'm so surprised they keep making an enormous big deal out of it. This year may be different indeed, but hardly anywhere do I read whether the children were completely healthy or not. Although it is often *implied* that they were, it is never actually confirmed. Even I find it hard to keep my head cool in this hype, where I usually take pride in being stubborn and hardheaded... Signature-- I mommy to DS (17m) mommy of a tiny angel (Oct 2003) guardian of DH (32) TTC #2.5 War doesn't decide who's right, only who's left >the real deal kills tens of thousands in the US in a good year -- and >among that number are a few children -- Our paper this morning (which I finally got around to reading this afternoon) had an article about the fact that B'ton is totally out of the flu vaccine everywhere. They talked about the fact that they'd given several thousand shots to kids in the past two weeks. They ALSO quoted a pediatrician (*my* pediatrician) saying that, while he's pleased that so many people chose to get the flu shot, that people shouldn't be panicking over this ... that the vaccine is still mostly important for people with underlying health issues -- and that healthy kids almost never die from influenza. (I had, incidently, been giving some thought to getting the vaccine myself this year for the first time. I NEVER get the flu, but since I work around the kids now, I thought maybe it would be a sensible thing to do. But... no vaccine left, so, if I get sick, I get sick.) Naomi CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator (either remove spamblock or change address to npardue@indiana.edu to e-mail reply.) Have been getting a flu shot for years- partly because it's very convenient-my employer offers them for free right at work. Secondlt because I have asthma- yeras ago I got the flu and then develped pluerisy- an experince I do not want to repeat. Marion Baumgarten > That's the way the flu always kills. The flu never (never say "never", right? :-) > kills you directly, some secondary infection kills you - usually pneumonia. Is this true? I did a little research, and although it's frequently pneumonia that kills people with the flu, I think can be a viral pneumonia caused directly by the influenza virus. I'm not a doctor, though, so I don't know, but it sort of seems on a common-sense level that for people who die very quickly of the flu (as was common in the 1918 epidemic for instance) there wouldn't be time for a secondary infection to take hold, so it must have been the flu virus that cause death. See: http://cme.ufl.edu/media/flu/lethal.html for instance. I freely admit that I could be wrong though. Beth > > That's the way the flu always kills. The flu never (never say "never", right? :-) > > kills you directly, some secondary infection kills you - usually pneumonia. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I freely admit that I could be wrong though. No, you're not wrong. The flu kills directly as well as indirectly with secondary infection. Marjorie > Beth >From what I've heard, it has to do with the fact that the flu strain is >so strong that it is weakening people's immune systems so that they are >not able to fight off the secondary staph infection the way they >otherwise might. All I know is, my family had the flu and since then we've been coming down with everything that is going around, and taking longer to recuperate. The typical 24-hour stomach bug going around town has taken us about 3 days to recover from. Amanda >because this year this strand of flu is making normal staph infections >fatal, in otherwise healthy children. So... therefore... surely even more dangerous for at risk kids. Making me wonder why they do not have enough vaccine available so at-risk people can get it. (Though, in truth, I'm not aware of any cases around here. Shaina says no-one at her school has been sick. A few kids have been out at the preschool, but it's the usual ear infections and colds -- and one kid was out today with, apparently, a mild reaction to HIS flu shot....) Naomi CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator (either remove spamblock or change address to npardue@indiana.edu to e-mail reply.) > >because this year this strand of flu is making normal staph infections > >fatal, in otherwise healthy children. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it's the usual ear infections and colds -- and one kid was out today with, > apparently, a mild reaction to HIS flu shot....) Well yeah :) The flu shot companies made less of the vaccine this year because in the past they've had to throw so much away and it takes a year to make the vaccine and blah di blah.. I couldn't get my 2 asthmatics in at the Navy hospital BEFORE the shortage. > The flu shot companies made less of the vaccine this year Not true. Last year, they made 75 million doses. This year, they made 80 million. The reason there is not enough to go around is because more people than expected have requested the vaccine. SignatureBe well, Barbara (Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [a quarter to 2] mom) This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop: "Custom fabracation" -- Auto body shop sign Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning. Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls! All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful. Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman > > The flu shot companies made less of the vaccine this year > > Not true. Last year, they made 75 million doses. This year, they made 80 > million. The reason there is not enough to go around is because more people > than expected have requested the vaccine. simply not true -- they made 95 million last year -- do a search on any of the news services -- they made fewer this year because only about 75-80 million were sold last year > > > The flu shot companies made less of the vaccine this year > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of the news services -- they made fewer this year because only about > 75-80 million were sold last year And that must be the source of the 75 million figure I heard. IOW, the manufacturers were only able to sell about 75 million doses, so only 75 million were actually in circulation. This year, I believe *all* the vaccine produced IS in circulation (84-91 million doses, according to a CDC website I just looked at), which means that there is more of it available this year even though the manufacturers produced less. SignatureBe well, Barbara (Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [a quarter to 2] mom) This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop: "Custom fabracation" -- Auto body shop sign Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning. Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls! All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful. Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman > > The flu shot companies made less of the vaccine this year > > Not true. Last year, they made 75 million doses. This year, they made 80 > million. The reason there is not enough to go around is because more people > than expected have requested the vaccine. Yeah, but what I don't get, is why they are running out, and why people are so anxious to get it. The vaccine is targeted at different strains of the flu than the one that's proving to be so virulent. I think there are two strains out there, and 1/3 of the flu cases are ones that are covered by the vaccine, but 2/3 are the other strain that ISN'T covered. I got the shot and had my daughter get her two early on, before all the hype. But when I read that the flu that's going around isn't even targeted by the vaccine, I wasn't sure why I bothered. Cathy Weeks Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01 > But when I read that the flu that's going around isn't even > targeted by the vaccine, I wasn't sure why I bothered. Because in most years, they guess pretty well what strains to include. It's like insurance. It's better to have it than not. Do you look back at the past year, if you haven't had a house fire, and wonder why you bothered to pay insurance on your house? I think most people would still consider it money well spent and be glad they didn't have need of it. Plus, the news reports I've seen have all said that even if you get the strain that isn't in the shot, if you have had the shot, then it reduces how sick you get, so it isn't a total loss. SignatureCheryl S. Mom to Julie, 2 yr., 8 mo. And Jaden, 3 months Cleaning the house while your children are small is like shoveling the sidewalk while it's still snowing. > > The flu shot companies made less of the vaccine this year > > Not true. Last year, they made 75 million doses. This year, they made 80 > million. The reason there is not enough to go around is because more people > than expected have requested the vaccine. Hmmm....the story I heard on NPR was that last year there were 92 million doses made but only 80 million people got vaccinated so 12 million doses got tossed. This year they made 82 million doses, so they did build in a slight increase. Jeanne > >because this year this strand of flu is making normal staph infections > >fatal, in otherwise healthy children. > > So... therefore... surely even more dangerous for at risk kids. Making me > wonder why they do not have enough vaccine available so at-risk people can get > it. Well, the strand of the flu listed above wasn't known about in advance, so they couldn't anticipate making more, nor could they expect that more people would want it. The makers of the vaccine are a for-profit company, so they surely would've made more if they knew that they could sell more. FYI, my healthy child got hers a month ago and will continue to get it yearly, as recommended by those in the health care profession in my family. We get it early, as we never know when there might be a run on it due to this or that scare, real or media induced. It has happened before. > (Though, in truth, I'm not aware of any cases around here. Shaina says no-one > at her school has been sick. A few kids have been out at the preschool, but > it's the usual ear infections and colds -- and one kid was out today with, > apparently, a mild reaction to HIS flu shot....) This evening's news had a story on school absences, noting one school, supposedly typical, that has averaged 60 absences per day in the past in December, but has averaged 220 per day in the past week. While "flu like symptoms" are often reported, it can't be directly connected (or not) to the flu. Whatever it is, there is a lot of sickness going around. P. Tierney There are so many kids out right now at the girls school. Just about half the class is gone from each of my three kids class. I was sitting in the office this morning waiting for our meeting to start and there were probably a half hours worth of messages that we were listening to about kids not being there because they were sick. -- Sue (mom to three girls) I'm Just a Raggedy Ann in a Barbie Doll World... > >because this year this strand of flu is making normal staph infections > >fatal, in otherwise healthy children. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > (either remove spamblock or change address to npardue@indiana.edu to e-mail > reply.) > (Though, in truth, I'm not aware of any cases around here. Shaina says no-one > at her school has been sick. A few kids have been out at the preschool, but > it's the usual ear infections and colds -- and one kid was out today with, > apparently, a mild reaction to HIS flu shot....) Really? Around here, it seems *everyone* is sick! There are practically lines outside the pediatricians' doors ;-) Best wishes, Ericka >Really? Around here, it seems *everyone* is sick! >There are practically lines outside the pediatricians' doors ;-) When I took Shaina in for he shot this morning, the office was virtually empty. (There were obviously some kids in the examining rooms, because we did have to wait a bit, but there was NOBODY in the waiting room, and only a few people came in while we were waiting.) Maybe hasn't gotten here yet? (Commonly, epidemics hit here after the winter holidays, when the returning students bring the viruses back from their home towns.) Naomi CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator (either remove spamblock or change address to npardue@indiana.edu to e-mail reply.) naomilynnep@aol.comNOSPAM wrote: >Maybe hasn't gotten here yet? (Commonly, epidemics hit here after the winter >holidays, when the returning students bring the viruses back from their home >towns.) http://www.indystar.com/articles/1/098562-7891-052.html "State warns of severe flu season" excerpt: "In Indiana, flu reports gathered the week of Nov. 15-22 from a previously designated group of 25 representative doctors triggered Wilson's concern. In that week, 10 percent of the doctors' patients had flulike symptoms or tested positive for the flu with a quick test. "That's the highest percentage we've ever had" this early in the flu season, Wilson said. Flu season typically hits hardest in January and February. When it starts as early as November, Wilson said, more people are likely to come down with the flu. With colder weather keeping people indoors and holidays bringing increased travel and large gatherings, the odds of flu being spread also increase, he noted." --Helen *>because this year this strand of flu is making normal staph infections *>fatal, in otherwise healthy children. * *So... therefore... surely even more dangerous for at risk kids. Making me *wonder why they do not have enough vaccine available so at-risk people can get *it. Because the for-profit vaccine manufacturer, as one would certainly expect, only wants to make as much as they can sell. Last year, a lot of vaccine went unsold and into the trash, so they made less this year than last year. Go figure, they should have made more, but their crystal ball wasn't working so well. Signaturehillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net info@hillary.net "uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est." not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :) >> I'd been a bit lax about getting Shaina in for hers (just kept forgetting >to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> should call back later in the week, in the hopes that they will have more >> vaccine in by then. Try calling local hospitals. Some may still have some left for high- risk patients. Good luck! --Robyn > Am I missing something? (Don't answer that...) > Every year we have the flu. Right? And every year people are told to get flu > shots if they are at high risk. And most of the rest of us, by and large, don't > bother. > So WHY... this year, is EVERYONE being told to get flu shots, with the result > that people who ARE at high risk, can't get them? The people who are at high risk should have gone to get their shots before this rush ever began. DS and I got our shots as soon as they were available and there was no shortage at that time. > > Am I missing something? (Don't answer that...) > > Every year we have the flu. Right? And every year people are told to get [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > this rush ever began. DS and I got our shots as soon as they were available > and there was no shortage at that time. That's why I was confused by the first post. The flu starts hitting it's height over Christmas season. If you get your kid a shot today they aren't fully immune until after the Christmas vacation, and presumably the season's travel, has started. Why would a high risk person not have their shots by now? I know around here they advertise them for high risk only in October, and don't start offering to the general public until November. So why would you wait this late if you really need one? Isn't the flu shot usually hard to get by now? >Why >would a high risk person not have their shots by now? As I said, I'd let the time get away from me a little this year. I usually do it late November or the very first part of December. It's never been an issue (health-wise for Shaina or in terms of having access to ample supplies of vaccine.) > I know around here >they advertise them for high risk only in October, and don't start offering >to the general public until November. So far as I know, the vaccine was first available in October, for anyone who wanted it at that time, or any other. > So why would you wait this late if >you really need one? Isn't the flu >shot usually hard to get by now? No. That was my whole point. I've ALWAYS gotten it for her around this time of year (maybe a week or two earlier), and have never had a problem. Yes, it was my fault for not calling sooner, but I still don't understand why they don't have vaccine available for high risk patients, rather than giving it all out to healthy kids and for the rest of us... well...it's just too bad ... and if our kid dies, or ends up really, really sick... well, we're learn our lesson for next time, won't we? Naomi CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator (either remove spamblock or change address to npardue@indiana.edu to e-mail reply.) >>Why >>would a high risk person not have their shots by now? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >if our kid dies, or ends up really, really sick... well, we're learn our lesson >for next time, won't we? My understanding is that in many areas now ('though not before, before the rush), vaccines *are* being reserved for those in high-risk categories. I got my vaccine, as I always do, at my workplace - my firm makes it available in November, motivated of course by reducing absenteeism. (I'm motivated as the single adult in my household by needing to be able to be the one to hold things together in any situation.) My son isn't in a high-risk category, and I haven't gotten a shot for him. I may in future years. Given the concerns for this flu season, however much is real and however much is media-enhanced, you can't very well expect that people voluntarily keep themselves unvaccinated so that you can hold to your own leisurely schedule even though your daughter is high-risk. (We can't please both yourself and Marjorie Peskin, apparently, anyway - she's demanding why everyone doesn't get themselves vaccinated to help protect high risk categories that can't get the vaccine themselves for various reasons.) So, yes, the lesson is - next time, get the vaccine in October when it *is* made especially available to high-risk folks like yourselves, because each year there may or may not be a rush later and that can't be anticipated. Banty >So, yes, the lesson is - next time, get the vaccine in October >when it *is* made especially available to high-risk folks like >yourselves, because each year there may or may not be a >rush later and that can't be anticipated. Has anyone gotten the nasal spray? I understand there is a good supply of that available and that low risk patients should get that instead of the shot? Any idea what the difference is in protection? -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > >So, yes, the lesson is - next time, get the vaccine in October > >when it *is* made especially available to high-risk folks like [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Any idea what the difference is in protection? No, but I know the difference in price, at least at one place. My flu shot cost my $12, while the "mist" was going for $65. P. Tierney >>>So, yes, the lesson is - next time, get the vaccine in October >>>when it *is* made especially available to high-risk folks like [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > P. Tierney That's in line with what I heard from someone who got it. I did think doctors were recommending it for low-risk patients - maybe that's people at low risk of poverty. Clisby >>So, yes, the lesson is - next time, get the vaccine in October >>when it *is* made especially available to high-risk folks like [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Any idea what the difference is in protection? My understanding is that it may be better in protection, being a live virus vaccine (which is why high-riskers can't take it). Banty *In article <j9ohtvcgji2jeemb17mt3u5d9n7r18bbub@4ax.com>, toto says... *> *> *>>So, yes, the lesson is - next time, get the vaccine in October *>>when it *is* made especially available to high-risk folks like *>>yourselves, because each year there may or may not be a *>>rush later and that can't be anticipated. *> *>Has anyone gotten the nasal spray? I understand there is a *>good supply of that available and that low risk patients should *>get that instead of the shot? *> *>Any idea what the difference is in protection? * *My understanding is that it may be better in protection, being a live virus *vaccine (which is why high-riskers can't take it). Yep. Plus the manufacturer is offering a $25 rebate right now. You can't have it if you come in contact with immunosuppressed people, though, because you could spread it to them and it might hurt them. Signaturehillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net info@hillary.net "uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est." not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :) nderstanding is that it may be better in protection, being a live virus > *vaccine (which is why high-riskers can't take it). > > Yep. Plus the manufacturer is offering a $25 rebate right now. You can't > have it if you come in contact with immunosuppressed people, though, > because you could spread it to them and it might hurt them. Hillary, Do you know if the coming into contact with immunosuppressed people policy applies if the person has has a flu shot of their own? I had my flu shot 2 months ago, and my kids are supposed to get the FluMist on Wednesday, and I'm immunosuppressed because of medicine for IBD. (The FluMist is on hold for them already, so I don't have to worry about them running out.) Thanks, > nderstanding is that it may be better in protection, being a live > virus [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Thanks, Just from what my dds' doctors have said, FluMist probably wouldn't be there best bet. It was recommended I not get the FluMist vaccine, not because of my Lupus, but because I have two asthmatics. *Hillary Israeli wrote: * *nderstanding is that it may be better in protection, being a live *virus *> *vaccine (which is why high-riskers can't take it). *> *> Yep. Plus the manufacturer is offering a $25 rebate right now. You can't *> have it if you come in contact with immunosuppressed people, though, *> because you could spread it to them and it might hurt them. *> * *Hillary, * *Do you know if the coming into contact with immunosuppressed *people policy applies if the person has has a flu shot of their *own? I had my flu shot 2 months ago, and my kids are supposed to *get the FluMist on Wednesday, and I'm immunosuppressed because of *medicine for IBD. (The FluMist is on hold for them already, so I *don't have to worry about them running out.) I would talk to your doctor about it. I mean, if I were immunosuppressed, certainly I'd rather be exposed to the FluMist virus than the wild-type virus...but I'd really rather be exposed to neither. So I guess it depends on how you calculate the risk of each of those things. Signaturehillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net info@hillary.net "uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est." not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :) > Hillary, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thanks, I have an immunosuppressed child and I would say no you shouldn't be around them. Even if you did get the flu shot (which getting the flu shot doesn't ensure that you won't get it, it may in fact just give you a mild case) so you are still vulnerable to the FluMist that your kids would get. -- Sue (mom to three girls) I'm Just a Raggedy Ann in a Barbie Doll World... > No. That was my whole point. I've ALWAYS > gotten it for her around this time of year (maybe > a week or two earlier), and have never had a problem. You probably wouldn't have had a problem this year either, one or two weeks ago. The difference this year is a news-media-induced hysteria. They've been reporting that twice the normal number of people are expected to die of flu this flu-season, and 13 children have died already. It was on the national evening news every night last week how this flu is so awful, and vaccines supplies are running low, so everyone who wants one better rush right out and get it. I got one this past Monday and my Dr's office predicted they were going to run out that day. The kids' Dr was already out of it. > Yes, it > was my fault for not calling sooner, but I still don't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > really sick... well, we're learn our lesson > for next time, won't we? It's not like they have separate "vaccines for high risk" and "vaccines for normal risk" storage areas. There's just "vaccine". If someone comes in wanting a flu shot and there's only one left, do you think the Dr should refuse just "in case" a higher risk person comes in later? I think it's a valid assumption for the doctors that anyone who's very high-risk would have gotten the shot ASAP (i.e. in October) and give it to whoever wants it at this time. OTOH there are counties around here where supplies are running low and therefore those county health departments are only giving them to people in higher risk categories. Individual doctors seem to set their own criteria. Have you contacted your county health dept.? I hope you're able to find one for Shaina. SignatureCheryl S. Mom to Julie, 2 yr., 8 mo. And Jaden, 3 months Cleaning the house while your children are small is like shoveling the sidewalk while it's still snowing. > >Why > >would a high risk person not have their shots by now? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if our kid dies, or ends up really, really sick... well, we're learn our lesson > for next time, won't we? How on earth are "they" supposed to know that you didn't get your child vaccinated?? The powers that be can't say "OK< in this area, we have X number of at risk kids and we'll put the vaccine aside for them just in case they haven't had it yet and their parents will eventually get around to it." Parents of healthy children have as much right to want to protect their kids as parents of less healthier children. Add to that, for each healthy child who is vaccinated, a less healthy child may have less of a chance of being exposed to the flu than if only the "at risk" kids had been vaccinated. You said it yourself, you were lax. Not the fault of parents of children who were not at risk. Marijke with two at-risk kids, one not at risk, one at risk parent and one not at risk parent - and all five of us are vaccinated. > > >Why > > >would a high risk person not have their shots by now? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > number of at risk kids and we'll put the vaccine aside for them just in case > they haven't had it yet and their parents will eventually get around to it." Another issue is that there are also *many* places (around here, anyway), to get vaccinated. The Pediatrician is most likely, but the health department vaccinates kids, and many drug stores and grocery stores do it too, though I don't know if there is an age cut-off for the latter places. Either way, the options are plentiful, and I agree that saving vaccine for someone who may or may not show up is a potential problem. P. Tierney > That's why I was confused by the first post. The flu starts hitting it's > height over Christmas season. If you get your kid a shot today they aren't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you really need one? Isn't the flu > shot usually hard to get by now? Also a friend who went in to get her son's flu shot said it's one shot now then another shot in 2 weeks. Plus supposedly the shot takes 2 weeks to become active as it were. So by then it's a month later. Is it worth it? > > That's why I was confused by the first post. The flu starts hitting it's > > height over Christmas season. If you get your kid a shot today they [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > then another shot in 2 weeks. Plus supposedly the shot takes 2 weeks to > become active as it were. So by then it's a month later. Is it worth it? Kids getting the shot for the first time, get a 2 shot series. And I think they get some immunity from the first shot - I don't know why they need two the first time, I'm sure someone here does. Last year my daughter got two shots, 2 weeks apart. This year she only needed one shot. Mary > Kids getting the shot for the first time, get a 2 shot series. And I think > they get some immunity from the first shot - I don't know why they > need two the first time, I'm sure someone here does. My understanding from something Hillary Israeli posted on another group (misc.kids.moderated?) that the first dose confers something like 85% immunity. The second dose gets them up to 95%. SignatureBe well, Barbara (Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [a quarter to 2] mom) This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop: "Custom fabracation" -- Auto body shop sign Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning. Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls! All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful. Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman > > Kids getting the shot for the first time, get a 2 shot series. And I think > > they get some immunity from the first shot - I don't know why they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (misc.kids.moderated?) that the first dose confers something like 85% > immunity. The second dose gets them up to 95%. interesting -- everything I read suggests adults only get 70-80% immunity from flu shots -- and they fear that this year's mismatched shot may offer much less of course in an epidemic situation herd immunity becomes important > > > Kids getting the shot for the first time, get a 2 shot series. And I think > > > they get some immunity from the first shot - I don't know why they [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > immunity from flu shots -- and they fear that this year's mismatched > shot may offer much less That may well be the case. Perhaps what was meant is that they get 85% of the total immunity conferred (however much that is) from the first shot and 95% of it from the second. IOW, the difference in total immunity between the first and second shots is only about 10%. SignatureBe well, Barbara (Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [a quarter to 2] mom) This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop: "Custom fabracation" -- Auto body shop sign Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning. Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls! All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful. Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman *In article <fT2Cb.48$BQ5.25@fed1read03>, "Circe" <guavaln@yahoo.com> *wrote: * *> "Mary W." <mbwagner@earthlink.net> wrote in message *> news:3FD8B371.63B90E07@earthlink.net... *> > Kids getting the shot for the first time, get a 2 shot series. And I think *> > they get some immunity from the first shot - I don't know why they *> > need two the first time, I'm sure someone here does. *> *> My understanding from something Hillary Israeli posted on another group *> (misc.kids.moderated?) that the first dose confers something like 85% *> immunity. The second dose gets them up to 95%. * *interesting -- everything I read suggests adults only get 70-80% *immunity from flu shots -- and they fear that this year's mismatched *shot may offer much less I actually asked in that other group (mkfl?) if anyone could confirm that... right? I think I did anyway. :) I got that information from a pediatrician, but didn't back it up with any personal research. -- hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net info@hillary.net "uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est." not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :) > Also a friend who went in to get her son's flu > shot said it's one shot now then another shot in > 2 weeks. Plus supposedly the shot takes 2 weeks to > become active as it were. So by then it's a month > later. Is it worth it? For kids under age 9(?) they need to get two shots only for the very first year that they ever get the shot. After that, it's just one like everyone else. Julie had it for the first time last year, and they had me do hers a month apart. If you start today, and it's effective by Jan 11, then at least you have protection for the last two months of the flu season. If the flu keeps spreading, it seems like that is when you most need the protection since you're more likely to come in contact with it. I'd say it's still worth it but JMO. SignatureCheryl S. Mom to Julie, 2 yr., 8 mo. And Jaden, 3 months Cleaning the house while your children are small is like shoveling the sidewalk while it's still snowing. > > Also a friend who went in to get her son's flu > > shot said it's one shot now then another shot in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > everyone else. Julie had it for the first time last year, and they had > me do hers a month apart. Oohhh okay, didn't know that. The boy in question is 3. > If you start today, and it's effective by Jan > 11, then at least you have protection for the last two months of the flu > season. If the flu keeps spreading, it seems like that is when you most > need the protection since you're more likely to come in contact with it. > I'd say it's still worth it but JMO. But if they're running out (or have run out) of the vaccine will you get your second shot? >> That's why I was confused by the first post. The flu starts hitting it's >> height over Christmas season. If you get your kid a shot today they [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >then another shot in 2 weeks. Plus supposedly the shot takes 2 weeks to >become active as it were. So by then it's a month later. Is it worth it? As someone who has had the "real flu" in years past (not a twenty four or forty eight hour viris that someone called the flu), yes, yes and again yes. the real flu kills people and it doesnt hit its intensity seriously until January and Febrary. I wanst sure if I should get one here in Germany, but I will get it next week, albeit late. Its the first year since I had the darned thing years ago that I have not gotten one in October. Barb *Also a friend who went in to get her son's flu shot said it's one shot now *then another shot in 2 weeks. Plus supposedly the shot takes 2 weeks to *become active as it were. So by then it's a month later. Is it worth it? Actually the CDC at this time is suggesting NOT giving booster shots, but rather giving everyone one shot, to confer at least partial immunity (it might be pretty good immunity, but the studies aren't available to say). Signaturehillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net info@hillary.net "uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est." not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :) > *Also a friend who went in to get her son's flu shot said it's one shot now > *then another shot in 2 weeks. Plus supposedly the shot takes 2 weeks to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (it might be pretty good immunity, but the studies aren't available to > say). Ah okay, I'll let my friend know that. Thanks. > That's why I was confused by the first post. The flu starts hitting it's > height over Christmas season. If you get your kid a shot today they aren't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to the general public until November. So why would you wait this late if > you really need one? Well, in the case of my son, he wasn't old enough until December 3rd when he hit 6 months. Everyone else was vaccinated. > Isn't the flu > shot usually hard to get by now? Depends on the year, but usually there's plenty of vaccines thru Dec. Jeanne >The people who are at high risk should have gone to get their shots before >this rush ever began. Point being though that I didn't even know there WAS a rush until I picked up the Sunday paper 5 days ago and read the article about how the local pediatrician's offices had given out over 1,000 shots last week, and were completely overrun with demand for the thing! (And I'd tried, in fact, to call acouple of times Friday, but couldn't get through.) Naomi CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator (either remove spamblock or change address to npardue@indiana.edu to e-mail reply.) > I'd been a bit lax about getting Shaina in for hers (just kept forgetting to > call, and time got away from me.) She has always gotten one, due to her asthma. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > should call back later in the week, in the hopes that they will have more > vaccine in by then. Is the flu mist not available in your area? I hadn't heard there wss a shortage of that. (I think you have to be at least 5 or 6 to get it, so it wouldn't help out people trying to get really little kids immunized). Clisby >Is the flu mist not available in your area? I hadn't heard there wss a >shortage of that. (I think you have to be at least 5 or 6 to get it, >so it wouldn't help out people trying to get really little kids immunized). The nurse didn't mention it being available when I asked. If they'd had some, given my concern, I'm assuming she would have mentioned it. (And... given the huge number of people requesting the vaccine, I'm guessing that these aren't ALL infants and toddlers getting it. I doubt that there are 1500 kids between 6-24 months in the area!) Naomi Naomi CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator (either remove spamblock or change address to npardue@indiana.edu to e-mail reply.) > Is the flu mist not available in your area? I hadn't heard there wss a > shortage of that. (I think you have to be at least 5 or 6 to get it, > so it wouldn't help out people trying to get really little kids immunized). Unfortunately, if you're high risk you're not supposed to get the mist, because it's a weakened and not a killed vaccine. I couldn't get it because of my asthma. Beth >>Is the flu mist not available in your area? I hadn't heard there wss a >>shortage of that. (I think you have to be at least 5 or 6 to get it, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Beth Oh, OK, I probably should have realized that from the age ranges (i.e., it's not for the elderly or really young children.) Clisby > Is the flu mist not available in your area? I hadn't heard there wss a > shortage of that. (I think you have to be at least 5 or 6 to get it, > so it wouldn't help out people trying to get really little kids immunized). > > Clisby Shaina isn't a candidate for Flumist since she is an asthmatic. Karen > Am I missing something? (Don't answer that...) > Every year we have the flu. Right? And every year people are told to get flu [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > done it in late November or early December -- often as part of her annual > check-up.) Naomi, Have you considered the FluMist Nasal spray version of the vaccine? We're just a bit south and west of you, and every one around here is out of the shots, but there are still vials of the FluMist around. I went to the Med Center pharmacy yesterday and got two vials for my kids. Actually, I reserved two vials and will pick them up in a couple days when the kids get over their colds. The vaccine needs to be kept frozen until it's sprayed, so I left it at the pharmacy so that it's kept at a constant temperature until we're ready for it. From the local news in Indy this week, it sounds like the pharmacies up there might have the vials available if none of the Columbus pharmacies do. C > Naomi, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > FluMist around. I went to the Med Center pharmacy yesterday and > got two vials for my kids. Apparently the FluMist is only for low risk people, so Shaina couldn't use it anyway. I called the ped this morning and, after calling back repeatedly, finally got through, to hear a recorded message saying that they had no flu vaccine; the expected shipment of 1000 doses had contained only 20... I stayed on the line and asked if they were SURE they had none... explaining that Shaina was high risk... perhaps they had some put aside for high risk patients??? She checked and reported that they had ONE dose left in the fridge, and if I could bring SHaina in right away, she could have it. So we did, and she got it. (And, while we were in the waiting room, several other parents came in asking about getting the shot for their kids ... and when I took SHaina to school, and brought her inside to sign her in (since she was late), I told the person at the desk (who happened to be the health aid...) that we'd been at the doctor getting her flu shot. And she said "Where did you get it????" Naomi (Who still thinks they need to make up their mind. If they're going to say that EVERYONE needs to get it, they should have enough on hand for EVERYONE, or else make sure that they always have some available for the patients who need it most.) *(Who still thinks they need to make up their mind. If they're going to *say that EVERYONE needs to get it, they should have enough on hand for *EVERYONE, or else make sure that they always have some available for *the patients who need it most.) "they" who? the CDC and other medical/scientific groups are the "they" saying everyone should get it. The vaccine manufacturers, which are for-profit corporations, are the ones supplying the vaccine, and it is not really reasonable to expect them to produce more than they reasonably expect to sell. Most years most people ignore the recommendations from those who say they should get flu shots. Signaturehillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net info@hillary.net "uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est." not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :) What I don't like is the media hyping getting the shots, and locally we had 700 flu shots available, and thousands showed up for them - so of course, most didn't get them. Now they are saying it takes 4 months to prepare a new batch of vaccines, so by the time they would be ready it would be too late to get them. My question is, knowing this is supposed to be a bad flu season, why were there such a limited # of shots. We've already had the flu here, and I never get the flu. We're just now starting to feel a bit more normal, after being sick for nearly a month. So, unless a different strain comes through, I guess we don't need to be vaccinated now :-) Still, it is annoying to be told get a flu shot, but there's none available. Amanda > My question is, knowing this is supposed to be a bad flu season, why were there > such a limited # of shots. Isn't this backwards? I thought it was a bad flu season *because* they guessed wrong about which strain would emerge (and possibly because it is a particularly virulent strain). I'm not sure when they realized it was the wrong strain but I think they planned on making the same number of shots as every year. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong. Signaturesharon, momma to savannah and willow (11/11/94) > Isn't this backwards? I thought it was a bad flu season *because* they > guessed wrong about which strain would emerge (and possibly because it is a > particularly virulent strain). I don't think so. There's some evidence, I think, that even though the vaccine this year doesn't cover the specific strain that's causing the worst illness, it covers another similar strain which means people who get the vaccine may still get the flu but have a milder case as a result of the vaccine. It certainly seemed to work that way for me. We all had our shots last week, but unfortunately, both of the boys came down with the flu in a bad way a few days later. I started feeling sick myself on Tuesday night, but fortunately, I never got worse than a runny nose, some chills, and a few aches. I'm pretty much back to normal today. > I'm not sure when they realized it was the > wrong strain but I think they planned on making the same number of shots as > every year. Nope. They made more vaccine this year than last. SignatureBe well, Barbara (Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [a quarter to 2] mom) This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop: "Custom fabracation" -- Auto body shop sign Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning. Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls! All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful. Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman > > My question is, knowing this is supposed to be a bad flu season, why were > there [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Please someone correct me if I'm wrong. they KNEW that the Fujian strain was the most likely -- but it is harder to make so they decided to go with the less likely strain anyway > they KNEW that the Fujian strain was the most likely -- but it is harder > to make so they decided to go with the less likely strain anyway Now that doesn't make any sense at all to me. If there were solid predictions the Fujian strain would surface, why not at least make a small number of shots for high risk people? I confess I don't know zip about how to make it or how difficult it would be... It just looks like going out in an open field during a tornado warning and being surprised when it hits. The people who make these predictions must have know to some extend that the Fujian strain is more agressive. Signature-- I mommy to DS (17m) mommy of a tiny angel (Oct 2003) guardian of DH (32) TTC #2.5 War doesn't decide who's right, only who's left *Jenn wrote: *> *> they KNEW that the Fujian strain was the most likely -- but it is harder *> to make so they decided to go with the less likely strain anyway * *Now that doesn't make any sense at all to me. If there were solid *predictions the Fujian strain would surface, why not at least make *a small number of shots for high risk people? I confess I don't *know zip about how to make it or how difficult it would be... They were having problems making that virus grow in egg culture (which is how our vaccines are produced; it got to the point where waiting for it any longer would have delayed the availability of the vaccine too long and it wouldn't have been ready in time for flu season. So they went with something they hoped would be good enough. Better than nothing. Signaturehillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net info@hillary.net "uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est." not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :) >Please someone correct me if I'm wrong. You could be right - I think this is the first year I've gotten the flu since I was a preschooler, and I don't tend to pay much attention to the flu shots and the flu strains etc. for the most part. Amanda > My question is, knowing this is supposed to be a bad flu season, why were there > such a limited # of shots. Well, the manufacturers actually made 5 million more doses this year than last, despite the fact that a lot of vaccine last year went unused. How much vaccine do you think they should make? SignatureBe well, Barbara (Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [a quarter to 2] mom) This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop: "Custom fabracation" -- Auto body shop sign Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning. Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls! All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful. Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman > Well, the manufacturers actually made 5 million more doses this year than > last, despite the fact that a lot of vaccine last year went unused. How much > vaccine do you think they should make? With the CDC recommending everyone should get the shot, there should in principle be enough shots for the entire US population (the exact number of which eludes me atm). If that cannot be done, CDC recommendations should be altered, or a method must be found to ensure high risk people will get their shot, no matter if they are late. Signature-- I mommy to DS (17m) mommy of a tiny angel (Oct 2003) guardian of DH (32) TTC #2.5 War doesn't decide who's right, only who's left > > Well, the manufacturers actually made 5 million more doses this year than > > last, despite the fact that a lot of vaccine last year went unused. How much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > principle be enough shots for the entire US population (the exact number |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message