Should kids be able to get the recommended second dose of H1N1 vaccine if other children haven't gotten their first shot yet?

Ok, Beoweolf, you're right about this when talking about antibiotics, because bacteria will mutate and become resistant if only partially treated.

However, you're totally off with this analysis of the vaccine. A person with partial immunity has some response to the virus (and likely a weaker illness), because his body is only able to mount a partial immune response. This has nothing to do with drug-resistant infection.

The H1N1 virus could mutate if it infects a person at the same time they are infected with another virus. This is probably the case with the current novel H1N1 in the first place...some lucky person with infected with a human H1N1 virus picked up a swine H1N1, and the two genetically recombined, forming an H1N1 virus with both human and swine genes which is rather highly infectious.

The american society should stop doing so much bad pot, the paranoia is outragous.. ITS THE FLU. Stop buying into the media and government hype..

It's just the flu, and a mild one at that. The vaccine will cause more serious problems than the flu even if every man woman and child on the planet get H1N1! The vaccine is full of mercury and squalene. Everyone knows mercury is not good for you, so why is Ok for the drug companies and our government to poison Americans with this? Squalene is listed as a bio-weapon, and is used mainly to induce lupus, arthritus, and other auto-immune diseases in lab test animals. Why would anyone want to put that into a heathy human body? PEOPLE, GROW UP. The government cannot take care of you from cradle to grave, and if they could, why would you trust them to do that?

It's just the flu, and a mild one at that. The vaccine will cause more serious problems than the flu even if every man woman and child on the planet get H1N1! The vaccine is full of mercury and squalene. Everyone knows mercury is not good for you, so why is Ok for the drug companies and our government to poison Americans with this? Squalene is listed as a bio-weapon, and is used mainly to induce lupus, arthritus, and other auto-immune diseases in lab test animals. Why would anyone want to put that into a heathy human body? PEOPLE, GROW UP. The government cannot take care of you from cradle to grave, and if they could, why would you trust them to do that?

Taking turns, is not the American way. Its get out of my way while I race to the top and leave you behind. That's how we became a great nation. OTSS, (Only the strong survive) -Dazed and Confused, amongst others.

RIGHT, why should the children that got their first shot ,have to wait until others get their first shot ,to get their second shot? if they need the second shot, it means you need the second shot for it to work in the way it was intended to, or why get it at all?

The idea of a vaccine is to inoculate you with a "relatively" harmless, but similar disease which the body either knows how to fight or can learn and remember how to make antibodies against.

In essence, you are purposely give a disease, relatively harmless, so that you either prevent or mount an attack against a worse disease. Children are not capable of producing effective antibodies at birth nor do they have a catalog of antibodies to draw on to defend against infections. That's one very good reason that kids should not travel, be unduly exposed to infections outside their immediate family. They do have the lingering benefit of antibodies inherited from their mothers, but that is temporary - its not like they can protect their own systems.

viral infections, in general, can be suppressed, but never cured - thus the whole point of vaccinations, so the body can learn how to make the antibodies it needs - you can not give a child enough of a dose in one shot to insure they will be fully protected, they need the second dose to reinforce the 1st. Just to be sure their immune system has learned what to do.

I agree with you on this.  There is a phenomenon known as "herd immunity" which occurs when a major proportion (but not all) of a population has been immunized against a virus. The reasoning is that if a substantial number of individuals are immunized, the virus cannot infect a sufficient number of individuals to produce an epidemic within the population. The problem is determining what proportion of the population needs to be immunized in order to reach that state.

No one knows that "one dose confers 25% immunity". It is merely a guess. For many persons, one dose may give full immunity (or as full as a flu vaccine can give.) For others, 35 doses may confer 0% immunity. It's all up to the immune system - it either works or it doesn't. For those who can respond to a vaccination, the first shot gives the immune system a little head start. The second shot, for some, makes the immune system a little more prepared.

Many children have already been exposed, infected, and recovered. And some of them are receiving the first vaccination now, which truly is a complete waste of limited vaccine. By recovering from the disease, they have shown that they became fully immune to a particular virus. Since they were not tested when ill, there is no way to know for sure if it was H1N1. But if estimates of absences due to swine flu are correct. then a significant percentage of the population is already immune.

By the time vaccine is available for all who want it, almost everyone will have already been exposed. Millions of doses will become medical waste.

And the same bunch of yahoo's are going to dictate the entire nations healthcare from a scratch to brain surgery. Scary!

Rationing occurs anyway--there simply are not enough resources to provide everyone with everything. The problem is, who should do the rationing?

Individuals who reason by slogan as you do ("government rationing") invariably misunderstand that what we have now is rationing that occurs by means of income and ability to afford health insurance. Your position seems to be that health should be restricted to people who can pay for it. That sounds very good until you contract a disease or condition that is catastrophic, and beyond your ability to pay out of pocket for the care you need.

Out of curiousity, I wonder if you could answer this for me? Suppose you are diagnosed today with cancer. Who should pay for your treatment?

I buy a service from my insurance company that says IF I get cancer, that I pay my ductables and copays, and they pay the rest. Thats how insurance works.

Saying that I cannot get the piggie flu shot because I do not belong to the gvmnts demographics, is just as bad as stringing up the black neighbor because he is black. Saying a woman cant do the job because she is a woman.

You have X number of doses, thoes shots goto the 1st x number of people who line up and wait their turn.

Oh my, first we have "gvmnt rationing", and now we have "gvmnt demographics". What "government demographics" are you talking about and what is your source for that particular little catchphrase (and please don't tell us that your source is Rush or Glen)?

The distribution channels for the available vaccine are determined through the various state Departments of Health. My source for that information is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (and not some ideological bogey-man on the radio airwaves or the Internet).

Jeremy,

The vaccine is produced by the private sector. If you need to blame somebody, blame Glaxo et al who promised to supply the vaccine large quantities by the middle of October. The government doesn't make the stuff. It was ordered by the Feds last spring. It takes at least 6 months to develop and grow the correct strain for a vaccine. See my post below for more.

Jack,

You sound like one of the, the gvmnt can do no wrong, or the Gvmnt will fix it type of people..

the Gvmnt Demographics I mentioned came FROM THE GVMNT. You know the demographic range that the Gvmnt said qualify for the shot.

The young, woman with child, and health care workers. You can try to paint me as someone mindlessly spouting off catchphrases, but since I listen to both left and right slanted radio to make my own opinions you would be wrong, and neither Rush or Beck are on my list that I listen to.

NHLucky,

You are right that the private sectors having problems making the vaccine. That has little to do with the fact that its the Gvmnt who is telling you if you can or cant get the shot. THATS my issue with everything.

Jeremy,

Oh, I see. Well then, let's try another tack. This is a public health issue. Epidemics are. This is about protecting the most vulnerable and limiting the spread most effectively. And first come, first serve doesn't do the job. The groups scientifically chosen due to their high risk should receive priority. I have no problem with that, I believe in science and epidemiolgy you see.

You can call it what you like. I call it responsible science.

PS I am not in one of the priority groups either. I am willing to take my place at the end of queue in favor of those who are at higher risk.

ITs not an epidemic..

Look at the yearly deaths from the seasonal flu, then look at the piggie flu. when someone dies of either flu, there is a common root occurance of another illness. Both the piggie flu and the seasonal flu are killing about the same ammount of people.

Im not going to get a shot even if I was able to get one. Bottom line is the Gvmnt is saying you can or cannot get a shot, so they are in essence saying someone is better off then someone else. What happened to Everyone is created equal?

First off, it is an epidemic, because it speads easily from person to person. Second, It is not killing anywhere near as many as seasonal flu. Even with their new inflated numbers, it's a fraction of seasonal flu fatality. This whole "pandemic" is a trumped up joke. THE VACCINE IS WAY WORSE THAN THE FLU!

Don't let them inject you with that poison.

Jeremy, whether it is an epidemic or not has nothing to do with the death rate, it is the rate of infection, which I gather is pretty brisk. And I agree with Bud, the risk has been blown all out of proportion. Sometimes I wonder why people are so easily scared.

But, to your other point about who gets the shot or not and that not being fair and a contradiction of "all men are created equal". I was a young child in the 1950s. The Eisenhower administration decided that children should have the polio vaccine first before adults and there were mass clinics right in the schools. Would you have opposed that because adults were not treated equally? Or, tell me, if your daughter was in a serious car accident but there was someone ahead of her at the ER with a sprained ankle, do you think that person should be treated first because they were there first (first come first serve) one to get there? My point is that there are circumstances when first come first serve is not the right thing to do. It has nothing to do with the evil government saying someone is better off that someone else. It has to do with complex factors that involve the prevention, spread and treatment of disease.

Incidentally, seniors usually get preferential treatment for flu vaccines. This strain is so similar to others of the past that seniors are deemed immune. So, is that unfair?

yeap! right on!

Oops...Too late. :(

You can get a debilitating neurological condition from having the actual swine flu (or any flu) just as you can from getting the vaccination.

Or, as the Health Care industry has a referred to patients who have an expensive affliction ... Without proof to the contrary - It could be a preexisting condition.

MusicFan,

You do need to get your facts straight before you continue to rail on Wall Street.

Simple fact:

The Doctors from large companies that have on site clinics were able to do exactly what your primary care doctor did. They requested the piggie flu shot, some were given shots some did not get any. The Doctors who did get the shots had to follow the same rules that your doctor did. They could not give the shot to the 55 year old exect that makes all that evil money because they did not belong to the Gvmnts rationing demographics.

I just find it amazing because we live in a small town.....not one dose of vaccine is scheduled for this area until the first of next year....all the physicians are up in arms.

I live in a small town with one elementary school and there was a vaccine clinic right at the school last week.

They gave your children's dose to our "more important than you" politicians' families.

don't forget Wallstreet and Gitmo.

At least the folks on Wall Street can come up with some decent bribe money. The politicians just take it because they're "better" than us unwashed masses (at least in their little pinsized brains).

I think you raise an interesting point. But, consider this: Viruses don't care whether you are an illegal immigrant or a conservative or a progressive. All a virus wants to do is to enter fresh human cells, make additional copies of itself, and infect new cells. What matters most in containing the spread of the virus is to immunize as many people as possible so as to slow the rate of new cases and thereby cause the outbreak to die out. From a simple biological perspective, it is totally unimportant whether the individual receiving a vaccine is an illegal immigrant, a convicted felon, or [insert the type of individual you find most objectionable here.] In fact, from a simple biological persepctive, it might make sense to specifically target people who live in circumstances that are most likely to promote the spread of the virus--for example, people living in overcrowded, poorly nourished, and impoverished settings with limited access to health care, since collections of people living under these conditions might become reservoirs for the spread of the disease.

Greg, I would have to agree with you. But, if all the illegals get the virus because they couldn't get the vaccine, just think of how much more it will cost us taxpayers to take care of their hospital bills for having the flu.

Alwayssa..., Sorry to be cruel, but you are lucky to be alive to begin with. Would you rather a HEALTHY CHILD DIE rather than you???? The future is with the children, not you.

Well, I guess the future will be a bunch of 3-year-olds running around without any adults producing food, providing health care, teaching in schools, etc. (Of course I don't think the pandemic will get that bad but am just using the extreme worst case scenario for an example.)

What is the point of saying "children are the future" if, when they become adults, no one cares about them anymore? Once you hit 18, you can go fly a kite, basically, is what you're saying.

They could be partially protected. It's my understanding that it's not "all or nothing." They could catch a milder case. It would be ideal for no one to catch it at all, but it's sure better to get a little sick than to die.

What I'm worried about is that if it's circulating at all, it has a chance to mutate. There's no way everyone, child or adult, is going to be vaccinated. Some can't, some won't want to, and the shot probably won't be available to all who want it, at least not right away. Ugh.

And this is only government-run vaccinations.

Just wait until you see full-blown government healthcare.

You'll be dead before you finish filling out all the forms and waiting in lines.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the vaccine is produced in the private sector. Not a government screw-up at all. The government agencies, maybe the CDC, I dont' know, ordered vaccine from Glaxo, MedImmune and several other private pharmaceutical companies. It has very little do with with government efficiency. The orders were placed in a timely fashion, delivery was promised by the private sector. It takes the producers time to isolate the virus strain and grow adequate virus to produce vaccine. Apparently, the virus is slow growing and it took longer than expected to produce the vaccine.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the vaccine is produced in the private sector. Not a government screw-up at all. The government agencies, maybe the CDC, I dont' know, ordered vaccine from Glaxo, MedImmune and several other private pharmaceutical companies. It has very little do with with government efficiency. The orders were placed in a timely fashion, delivery was promised by the private sector. It takes the producers time to isolate the virus strain and grow adequate virus to produce vaccine. Apparently, the virus is slow growing and it took longer than expected to produce the vaccine.

Please, don't use common sense to interrupt a good carbon based rant... It's not polite, its disruptive and it only serves to confuse people - making them feel like they need to think for themself.

A lot of lobbyist money was spent in developing and spreading these half truths, you need to respect the process. Next thing you know, you'll be saying the evolution is fact, not just a theory.

Aw,shucks. I thought I was helping. I guess I'll just go wait in line somewhere for my vaccine.

Although it is indeed true that the vaccine was produced in the private sector, it had to be ordered by someone (in the government).

Having worked with government agencies for many years, let me briefly explain the process.

It is determined by the higher-ups that a product must be ordered ASAP. That directive then starts going through the bureaucratic chain. It goes through an internal review, a financial review, a purchasing review, a funding review, and quite a few more agencies and bureaucrats before an order even gets placed.

That's where having the government in charge will slow things to a crawl. When I was in the private sector I had people tell me "we'll get right on it; and the paperwork will follow" and that's exactly what happened. NEVER has that been uttered here in the halls of government. As the old cliche goes: "people around here don't take a dump without multiple forms signed in triplicate".

The government lives by (well-intended) bureaucracy, but it's that bureaucracy that forces everything to move at a snail's pace...and sometimes that's too slow, especially if it's someone's life hanging in the balance.

That may be true, but it is the private sector that failed here.

It isn't even clear that the private sector "failed" here. No one had tried to grow this specific virus in a mass production setting before, so the initial estimates on how quickly supply could be ramped up to meet demand were just that--estimates. The current situation (wanting to get the vaccine but not being able to, or having disparities in its availability) is indeed frustrating, but many things that are frustrating are not actually the fault of any one group--government, the private sector, or otherwise.

Jack, I stand corrected. I just find it so annoying when the "government is evil" bandwagon starts rolling.

Well then, I would be interested if anyone can answer how the government got the vaccines distributed to them first? All our Public Health clinics received supplies of the vaccines before any private physicians. Why? It wouldn't be that all those who don't have insurance should get the vaccine before all those that pay out the nose for that insurance should, right?

Possibly it has to do with the fact that the US Government paid over a billion dollars to purchase the vaccine?

You have to start somewhere. Even in the best case scenario - even if there were 150 million doses coming on trains today ... someone has to be first.

What we didn't get was a stop to warehouse everything, wait until the full shipment was delivered before distribution started. It made no sense to hold off until the entire shipment arrived.

Even more confusing is these detractors can't even get there complaint straight. One group doesn't think Government Leaders should get vaccinated until-What? - everyone else gets a full round of shots. We really need the Congress, the Executive office and Supreme court to get the flu all at the same time.

But wait there is another group of detractors that say; The vaccine is unsafe, If it was any good ... why don't the leaders take it first, give it to their children, relatives to prove to the rest of us that it works. Of course, they already have and in a very public way. Which leads us back to group #1, asking why they get special privileges. Pick a card, and play the hand, please.

Then there are the died in the wool "put a price on everything Hardcore Republicans" - I'm sure they want to charge for protecting the public, no freebies ... $100 a dose would be about right; got to make a profit, right?Problem with that is, they also don't want the Feds to spend any money on health care (which means we couldn't even order the vaccine), that would be on credit - which would mean deficit spending on health care.

Get your story straight. Even liars/ lobbyist, whatever their current title is, know that a mixed message is automatically discounted. Loudest, longest, whiny-est doesn't mean its the will of the people. We are exposed to more than 3,000 commercials everyday (TV, Print, Billboards, radio, labels on jeans, T-shirts, etc, etc). The public soon tires of it, tunes it out - much like living next to a slaughter house, trash dump, constantly overflowing cess pool or Pig farm - at some point you reach overload and the body accepts it as the new "Normal", nothing remarkable.

Listening to Republican rants has become the new normal. It only gets noticed when the wind changes, let them stew in their own rhetoric - like a fart in an elevator, after a while, even they will learn to control their bowels.

Life is good in the GOP ... eyes closed, mouth open, mind disengauged and eyes wide shut. Things were much better looking backward - no one needed to see the train wreck that was fast approaching - I know. Lets give it to Mikey ... he won't eat it. ~ That's Life.

You didn't have to prove anything because the public clinics are serving the illegal population and it is against policy to ask for ID or anything as that would serve to cause 'disparities' in the care given.

So Paul, do you think you would be less likely to catch the flu from an unvaccinated so-called "illegal"? As somebody stated earlier, the virus can't tell if its host is illegal or not. This is about disease prevention, not xenophobia.

I think when we are talking about rationing the vaccine, the citizens should be first on the list. Of course the illegal population will also get the flu, but if there's not enough vaccines to start with, maybe they should be the ones at higher risk!

It's just children 9 and under that are supposed to get a second one.

Maxie,

You need to check back in after you wake up and smell the coffee dear.

Oh, I think Maxie's sense of smell is just fine. thanks.

You know what? I am sick of that "the government can't do anything right" mantra! Spend 5 MINUTES in a 3rd world country then tell me that. You should be grateful that we have the functional society we have when the majority of people in the world live in countries where the governments really don't work. Ours works pretty well. So, give it a rest, will ya?

Well NHLucky I guess if you like paying tens of thousands in taxes and getting the performance your getting from our government you set your bar pretty low. If we lived, performed and paid into our government what third world countries do then I guess you might have a point. But we don't so the mantra is right on. If this is all you expect from your hard earned taxes then your the type of person encouraging the criminal pal always up side of our government. Tell us exactly what part of our government is working so smoothly (think in terms that we are not a third world country). How many bills go through our government without having pork attached? None.

Stop,

I don't mind paying taxes for a stable government that is the envy of the world. I don't think of taxation as theft. I am getting plenty for my money. It is easy to carp, and we are not perfect, but if you compare us to places that are truly non-functional we are in a whole different ballpark.

We are way ahead just on bribery alone based on my experiences in places like Egypt and Panama.

Stop, Most likely NH doesn't pay taxes. Seems to have the common views of the takers, not the givers!

Paul, if that is the best argument you've got, you're in big trouble. I am 60 years old and have paid taxes every year since I was 17. You know, it IS possible to disagree with your point of view and still be a responsible citizen.

Argument? OK.