AFD - Vaccine Commentaries and Controversies

[sharon sanders]

Federal Times Vaccine Commentary




# 2038



http://afludiary.blogspot.com/



The Federal Times is a well-respected source of information focused on issues of concern to senior government managers.


Over the weekend they ran an opinion piece by Dr. Ned Feder, formerly of the NIH (National Institute of Health) and now a spokesperson for POGO (Project On Government Oversight), on the need for more transparency in our Federal Vaccine Program.

Commentary: Pandemic flu vaccine program needs help

By NED FEDER
June 01, 2008
A government document ? never released ? presents a troubling picture of a vaccine shortage during an influenza pandemic: Overall, about 2 percent of Americans with influenza illness die. Hospitals are overwhelmed. People riot at some vaccination clinics as they are turned away or supplies run out. Trucks transporting vaccine are hijacked. Public anxiety heightens mistrust of government. Mortuaries and funeral homes are overwhelmed. The majority of people still have not been vaccinated when a second wave of influenza begins.

These descriptions come from an October 2006 New York Times article by Gardiner Harris, who obtained the government document. The document was never released to the public as originally planned. Its portrayal of public chaos and a heightened mistrust of government is a reminder of past blunders ? and this may have hit too close to home.

Are these scenes an accurate forecast of a disaster that lies ahead? Or, instead, will the federal government be ready with enough vaccine when a pandemic strikes? The government has announced its plans, and they are not reassuring. The official word is that it will be several years before government-funded vaccine manufacturers are fully ready to produce vaccine. Even then, there won?t be enough vaccine for everyone until six months after the start of a pandemic.

The government?s pandemic flu vaccine program is a fairly good one, with scientists who are among the best in vaccine research and production. But the program has an obvious and easily corrected weakness: lack of transparency.

(Continue)
​

posted by FLA_MEDIC @ 6:49 AM

 

[gsgs]

Re: AFD - Vaccines - Federal Times Vaccine Commentary

Re: AFD - Vaccines - Federal Times Vaccine Commentary

discussion:
http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69966

 

[sharon sanders]

Re: AFD - Vaccines - Federal Times Vaccine Commentary

Re: AFD - Vaccines - Federal Times Vaccine Commentary

When Headlines Attack



# 2073


While there isn't much legitimate pandemic or influenza news this morning, we do have this piece of . . . err, `journalistic excellence' from the Daily Mail.

First the article, then some discussion.

23 people die and 123 are hospitalised after being given flu vaccine


By Mail On Sunday Reporter
Last updated at 11:57 PM on 14th June 2008

23 people have died from heart attacks, blood infections and pneumonia after having routine flu jabs

Official figures show that a further 123 people given the winter vaccine suffered a suspected reaction so severe they were taken to hospital.

Causes of death included heart attacks, blood infections and pneumonia, while asthma and kidney failure were among reported side-effects.

The statistics, revealed by Health Minister Dawn Primarolo, raise fears over the safety of the vaccine, which is taken by eight million people in Britain every year.
(Cont.)
​

I will be the first to admit that we don't know as much about vaccine safety and efficacy as we should, and that any suggestion that a vaccine may be causing excess mortality or morbidity requires investigation.

Vaccines, after all, are drugs.

And like all drugs, they can produce side effects. Most are mild, but on occasion, serious problems can erupt. Plus there are real questions about their effectiveness, particularly in the elderly.

Vaccines are a valuable tool in the fight against influenza, but vaccines are not a panacea.

The question is: Do 23 deaths (with no causal link to the vaccine) indicate that a vaccine is unsafe? What about 123 hospitalizations?

Do the risks of a flu jab outweigh the benefits?


​

These incidents reportedly were recorded over 5 years in the UK, during which time some 40,000,000 inoculations were given.

Twenty-three deaths is slightly more than 1 death out of every 1.8 million jabs. And that assumes that all of these deaths were actually due to the shot.

Maybe, maybe not.

The target group for the flu jab in the UK are primarily those over the age of 65, a group who coincidentally are most likely to suffer from heart attacks, blood infections, and pneumonia.

Each year, seasonal influenza affects between 5% and 15% of the population. For most people, it is not a serious illness. But for roughly 1 in 1,000 it can be deadly. In a country the size of the UK, that equates to 3,000 to 4,000 deaths each year.

In other words, over the same time period where as many as 23 people may have died from the vaccine, influenza claimed the lives of between 15,000 and 20,000 Britons.

Let's do a little math, shall we?

If 10% of the 8,000,000 people who get the flu jab in the UK each year would have caught the flu, and the vaccine was only 50% efficient in protecting the recipient, then 400,000 people didn't get the flu who probably would have.

And if 1 in 1,000 would have died, then it is likely that 400 lives were saved each year by the jab, along with tens of millions of dollars in hospitalization costs.

​

Taking a flu jab isn't entirely risk free. But then, neither is taking an aspirin, or walking down the street.


But if you are playing the odds, getting a flu shot each year is still a smart move.

Despite what you might read in the funny papers.

posted by FLA_MEDIC @ 11:22 AM

 

[sharon sanders]

Re: AFD - Vaccine Commentaries and Controversies

The Tracks Of Our Tiers


# 3247


(With apologies to Smokey Robinson)


Yesterday it was announced that the HHS had entered into agreements with three drug companies to manufacture enough doses of vaccine to cover 20 million high risk individuals and those working in health care, national security, and emergency services.

This story from the Washington Post.

U.S. Asks Firms to Make Swine Flu Vaccine

By David Brown and Rob Stein

Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 23, 2009

The federal government has asked three drug companies to make enough swine flu vaccine to immunize at least 20 million people in key positions in health care, national security and emergency services, officials said yesterday.

The order, announced by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, is part of a $1 billion investment in immediate production and testing of vaccine against the newly emerged strain of the H1N1 flu virus. Further orders for potentially hundreds of millions of doses of vaccine are expected.
​

If you are one of 305 million Americans, you may be puzzled by the ordering of just enough vaccine for 20 million people. After all, some elements of the media (see A Vaccine Reality Check ) have acted as if everyone would get a swine flu shot this fall.

The answer lies in the tiered priority system developed by the HHS for delivering a vaccine to the American people during a pandemic.
​

It simply isn?t possible to manufacture and deliver enough vaccine to vaccinate 300 million Americans all at once.

People at greatest risk, or who perform key jobs important to national security and the nation?s infrastructure - are by necessity -first in line to receive a vaccine.
​

The goal, of course, is to offer a vaccine to all Americans. But that could take months to accomplish.

The tier system, illustrated above, may see some modifications over the coming months, but should give you some idea of the prioritization process.

The first, or top tier, consists of about 24 million people and that includes deployed military forces, healthcare workers, pregnant women (a very high risk group), infants and toddlers.



Next come two tiers of mostly critical occupations.




Followed by two more tiers that take in the rest of the nations population.



Those at lowest risk may not receive a vaccine until months after the first, highest risk tier is vaccinated.

The logistics of delivering a vaccine to 300 million people cannot be overstated. It will certainly take months, particularly if two shots (30 days apart) are required per person.


For now, there are good reasons not to order 300 to 600 million doses of vaccine straight away.

Three big ones include:

• If the virus remains mild, or goes away completely, then quite understandably the majority of people won?t want to take a vaccine for it.

• We don?t know right now how much antigen will be required in each shot, or if it will take 1 shot or 2 to convey immunity. Big questions that must be answered by human trials later this summer, and that will affect the amount of vaccine that will be needed.

• The possibility always exists that the virus may mutate, or change, over the coming months rendering any vaccine made based on today?s virus less effective.

By ordering enough vaccine right now to cover essential personnel, and those at greatest risk, the HHS is putting into motion the machinery that will be needed later in the summer to produce far more vaccine, to cover far more people.

After human trials have been conducted, and public opinion over willingness to take a vaccine has been sampled, the HHS will have a better idea about how much vaccine they will need to order.
​

Until then, ordering enough vaccine to cover 20 million people is a good, prudent, first step.