UKC

..........and would seriously urge you all to CONSIDER whether to join me, for yourself.

There has been a previous debate about the pro's and cons of having the vacc,

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=378869&v=1#x5484717

and indeed in the end it is up to you. However, we all tend to go from our own personal knowledge and experience, and for my part being an asthmatic where every bloody cold and sniffle I have tends to end up with me having thick green lumpy snot in my lungs (and very tasty it was, too) and a vastly reduced capacity to breathe, prompted me to have the seasonal vaccination (as usual) and the H1N1 version, too. No adverse effects. It should at least cut down the chances of me contracting flu that will affect my breathing. A few years ago I had such an episode and frankly I should have been in hospital- but you know how it is, when you're in the business you do everything you can to stay out of the place! It frightened me badly, though. I spent weeks struggling, and seveeral days camped on my sofa because I could wedge myself upright. I was exhausted, just trying to breathe.

Locally, I know of two people in their forties in an ITU who both have swine flu, and they will not make it. They do not have an underlying condition, either. Their chest XR just show a sheet of white consolidation.

Please, gang, have another think about it all not only for your own sake but also for those around you who might be affected if you get infected- lots of us care of relatives, children, etc. and have close contact with the vulnerable such as those with underlying conditions and impaired immune systems.

End of the health chat- I'll take my nursie hat off now.

Sxx

In reply to Sarah G:

I will be asking for mine when I go for my blood tests next week as had several colds and coughs since having my first ever antibiotics a couple of months ago removing my immune system. First real colds in over 30 years, damn it.

In reply to Sarah G:
the two times i've been persuaded to have flu jabs by my asthma clinic nurses i've had incredibly bad years for catching general colds... and it would seem that whilst this is apparently coincidental, many other people have crap winters subsequent to flu jabs too. I've also had several bouts of proper influenza in my time and i know how nasty the fever, sweats, chills and hallucinations can be and i'd still rather have the flu once than many colds; so i'm staying away from needles this year. healthy eating, good sleep, berocca and echinacea will have to see me through instead. it's interesting to see that only 20% of medical staff traditionally take up the vaccinations each year and it'll be really interesting to see whether this figure changes in 2009/2010 and whether any reasons are given one way or another.

In reply to Sarah G: Hi Sarah, yup, had mine with the seasonal swine flu too. Haven't read around it much; can an innoculated person still carry it and thus be infectious?

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
Only by contact- having the vacc doesn't mean you are excused from washing your hands! so, you wouldn't be infectious as such, but certainly you could still inadvertently pass it on.

Sx

In reply to Sarah G: I wouldn't get a jab before properly researching it myself...

Does anyone know what is inside the vaccines? Any thimerosol?

In reply to Sarah G:
An interesting article here http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/2/shannon_brownlee_does_the_vaccine_mat...
Shannon Brownlee examines how some flu experts are challenging the medical orthodoxy and arguing that for those most in need of protection, flu shots and antiviral drugs may provide little to none. So where does that leave us if a bad pandemic strikes? Shannon Brownlee is the author of the bestselling book Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer.

In reply to Dom Whillans:

I'm with you on this, I'm rarely ill at all, and I haven't had influenza since I was 14. I remember how bad it was though, I was out of action for 3 days - bedridden. I seem to get a few colds nowadays probably because I get the train to work, but nothing serious.

We are offered the seasonal flu jab free at work but I've never had it because I'd rather not put anything in me that I don't need, I see it as unnecessary, and perhaps inviting further problems. Haven't been ill in the few years I've been here.

I'll ride this pig-flu out, sure I'll be fine.

In reply to Sarah G:

Out of interest, how severe is your asthma? I have pretty mild asthma (rarely use inhalers, usually just ventolin before I go running), but I've been wondering if it means that I'm particularly at risk of complications.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:


Caught it back in August and can say it wasn't bad at all compared to the 'flu I had in my late teens, had the aches/wheezines for a couple of days and the raging temp for about 1 day, but I don't suffer from Asthma etc., though some guys at work have gone down with it over the last couple of weeks and they're making out that it's much worse now - has it mutated?

In reply to Sarah G: The threat of the swine flu is a canard for credulous fools who can't add up. There's no way I'm going to enrich some big pharma new world order operation and ingest god knows what for no coherent threat to my person.How's that.

In reply to Dom Whillans:
Still wary. They tried the measles vaccine on me, about a year before it was rolled out nationally. I nearly died, due to a severe reaction to it. My head says - yes! Herd immunity and social responsibility. My guts - (or lack of) say let someone else be the guinea pig.

Quite academic, as I will probably have had the lurgy by the time I get my invite.

In reply to Sarah G: I wont be having it.

As a pretty healthy person with no medical problems I don't see the need.

I know a lot of people who have had it (and a lot of people that have had to deal with patients with it) and whilst they have been quite ill, it is not something that has caused issues to otherwise healthy adults.

I'd think twice if I had an underlying medical problem, but no, not now.

In reply to Sarah G:

If I weren't pregnant, I wouldn't bother at all based on the relative balance of risk. But I am, and the relative balance of risk (swine flu vs vaccine) are somewhat different, so I'm awaiting my jag impatiently. Oh well, just another 2 weeks to go (my med centre has had a bit of a hold-up/mess-up with supplies).

It aint worth it unless you are high risk. Media hype and all it probably wont happen. why worry?

In reply to Sarah G:

My GP has offered me the vaccination stating i'm in the high risk category. Which is news to me...

In reply to Danzig:

A colleague's flat-mate had it recently and was floored by it apparently. Recovered now. He then went to the docs to be tested but they said they don't test in those circumstances, i.e. if you live with a sufferer, they just prescribe Tamiflu and suggest self-imposed quarantine (as a potential carrier) for a week. I'm not aware of any mutuation but each virus will affect each person in different ways. There are 12 symptoms with varying degrees of severity per sufferer apparently.

In reply to Sarah G:

I though Swine flu vac was only for those identified. i.e. not for the general public to say 'I want that'.

In reply to IainRUK:



It is only for those identified as being "at risk" - at the moment anyway. There wouldn't be enough vaccine to immunise everybody in the country. There'll probably be a second round of vaccines which would be for the general public.

The "at risk" groups include those with underlying medical conditions, pregnancy, children <6months, elderly and health care workers. If in doubt, discuss with your GP practice.

In reply to Sarah G:

Get lost Sarah,

How will having the swine flu vaccine offer the community any greater protection than having the seasonal flu?

Why all the hype about swine flu? it's ever so slightly more infectious, but less serious than seasonal flu, so how can it pose more of a risk to the population than seasonal?

Why should those that don't get the annual vaccine be compelled to get the swine flu vaccine?

In reply to rusty_nails:
>

Problem with swine flu is that it is very serious for some people ( a small minority of course), more so than seasonal flu. I thought as you did till I spoke to my mate who works in ICU. They have some very ill previously healthy young people with swine flu.

In reply to Bingly Bong:

Ditto. I can't remember the last time I was ill for anything and on the rare occasion I've caught a cold, it's just 2 days of blowing my nose.

In reply to rusty_nails:
It provides protection against the H1N1 virus, a flu virus, so it will limit the total number of people suffering from a 'flu' this year. The seasonal flu vaccine is there already to limit the total number of flu sufferers. This is an addition. The seasonal vaccine is built from the most prevalent strains at a given time, H1N1 vaccine is for one flu strain. It will contribute to fewer people becoming victim of a 'flu'.

The hype is because it is as indiscriminate as a machine gun when it comes to the people it can hit in a crowd. Young, middle, and old are equally as likely to be hit by it, and the deaths, although more likely in people with linked vulnerabilities from existing conditions, will affect everyone from toddler to pensioner. It's the 'everyone is at risk' factor.

To understand the virology it is more serious than seasonal flu in that it is more likely to kill your average healthy person than your standard bout of flu, which kills people because it preys on the weak and old, much like pneumonia. Swine flu is indiscriminate by target and can kill anyone no matter how fit and well so the numbers of dead will be drawn more from society as a whole, rather than mainly the old and the weak.

In basic numbers it will probably kill far less than standard flu culls each year but potency wise Swine Flu is slightly more virulent. The difference is who it can kill, which is all of us, rather than how many.


As above, it is an entirely separate virus requiring a separate vaccination, and whilst your established immune system may protect you from standard flu it may not protect you from this one. Whether you get the seasonal flu vaccine or not you remain unprotected from Swine Flu.

In reply to ginger_lord:

It's because you're ginger.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

Thiomersol: It depends which vaccine you get.

See this from the previously mentioned other thread: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=378869&v=1#x5484697

Also, can anyone answer this?

If I don't get vaccinated and get the 'swine flu'. Am I a risk to those who have been vaccinated for H1N1?

If I am then what does the vaccine actually do?

If I am not then why does it matter to others (at least some have voiced opinions about this) whether their neighbour gets the vaccine or not? The common tale appears to be that of parents of school age children who are claiming that their children are being put at risk by 'no-vacciners'.

In reply to EZ:


As far as I understand the vaccination process, if you are vaccinated for anything i.e. by a small and safe amount of the virus/ disease being put into your system and your immune system responding and beating it, thus producing the necessary response should you come into contact with it again, then you are 'immune' to the virus.

Therefore in theory you could be shoved into a small airtight room with 10 people with Swine Flu and not get it, provdied you have been vaccinated against Swine Flu. Importantly though, you can still get 'flu'.

The people whining about other people not being vaccinated misunderstand the process, and the virus, and given the coverage recently no-one has an excuse not to find out about it. If we don't want a nanny-state we should be prepared to do without our nanny!

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

can you put some idea of "risk" on it ? I understand about 150 have died so far - say 10 with no known health problems. do i have more chance as a healthy (hopefully) adult winning the lottery than dieing from swine flue ?

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

ps i like the ginger comment above

In reply to Papillon:

Most reports coming from the Southern Hemisphere in late August (winter finished there) suggested that the swine flu is highly infectious, but not particularly lethal. For example, Australian officials estimated they would finish winter with under 1,000 swine flu deaths—fewer than the usual 1,500 to 3,000 from seasonal flu. Among those who have died in the U.S., about 70 percent were already suffering from congenital conditions like cerebral palsy or underlying illnesses such as cancer, asthma, or AIDS, which make people more vulnerable.

Lets put this in context. It IS slightly more infectious than normal, but is not any more lethal than normal.

We can expect more people to die from the normal flu this winter than we can from swine flu. If it is SOOOO important that we must maintain herd immunity from swineflu (in case it kills us ALL), why not the same worry about seasonal?

Could it be that the government want to be seen to be doing something, and the bogeyman that is swineflu is a great distraction from all the other shit things happening here this year?

In reply to graeme jackson:

Ah a government conspiracy to wipe us out. A bit like AID's and black people then lol

In reply to Jon Hemlock:
I am aware of how the vaccine are designed and implemented. If they are so desperate to prevent people becoming a victim of a 'flu' why is there not such a media scrum over the annual vaccine (which actually covers 3 or 4 strains!)? If all they want to do is offer maximum protection, why not give a vaccine for the 10, or 100 most prevalent strains? The approach being advocated is totally inconsistent, and stinks of populist science.

That's bollocks! Healthy indivuduals are no where near as likely to catch it as those with underlying problems. How come swine flu is being singled out for the 'everyone is at risk' approach? It is only one of thousands of variants of the flu virus, so what makes it that much more dangerous than the different ones we see year in year out (which we seem to have managed to survive for thousands of year!)

Again, you are talking bollocks. All reports to date have shown that it is less serious than your average strain of seasonal flu. It is no more or less indiscriminate than any other seasonal strain.


That point totally contradicts all of your previous posts? You either think swine flu is so dangerous that it will kill more than seasonal flu, or you acknowledge that it is a smaller risk to society than normal flu. Which one is it?

As to the chosing who to protect, are you saying it's more important to protect certain sectors of society than others? Who shall we choose not to protect? Surely public health is about trying to protect the maximum number of people for the minimum effort. Not choosing to protect the maximum number by concentrating on the most dangerous threat is tantamount to murder.


We've addressed that previously. My immune system will only 'protect' me from the flu strains which i have encountered, not 'standard' flu. I will take my chances without the swine flu vaccine, as i've managed this far in my life without ever getting the seasonal vaccine, so swine flu (which is less serious) should pose someone in my position (and most teenagers and adults) no real problem.

In reply to EZ:
No, they 'should' have a higher level of immunity than those without previous exposure (in the form of a vaccine or contracting swine flu)


It exposes your immune system to a small volume of denatured (read deactivated) swine flu vaccine. Your body should respond to it, but not be overwhelmed, allowing it to build natural defences for the next exposure).


Because they are whinging tw*ts who read the scare stories in the daily mail, sun, and other tabloid rags.

The world will not be brought to it's end by swine flu, we will survive, and in 6 months time, everyone will wonder what the fuss was about.

Anyone remember bird flu?

In reply to rusty_nails:

Thanks. I didn't really want to know. I have my opinion already. I asked the question to raise the point really. Thanks again though.

In reply to rusty_nails:

Now you are talking rubbish. A lot of the people who have the illness are young healthy people who just happen to not have built up a lot of immunity to things. Just look at the figures on the health websites for information.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8021958.stm

In reply to rusty_nails:
No idea, I'm not in NHS Policy. I assume the scrum is because of how pandemics/ epidemics have gone in the past and the fact that a lot of people died.


It's not bollocks, and like many you're showing a gross misunderstanding of virology. H1N1 is as easy to catch as a cold, therefore healthy individuals are just as likely to catch it. I think what you actually mean though is how much people with it *suffer* from it. As I said a colleagues flatmate got it, a young healthy male in his twenties. Floored him, where it may have killed someone with underlying problems, but he's fine now. Nothing to do with who is more likely to catch it however.

I've told you why it's more dangerous read my previous post again, if you don't understand it still then ask me a question.

No no no, you're really showing your ignorance now. Point me in the direction of one of these reports and I'll read it and translate for you.
Again your linmitations are laid bare. And please try to refrain from using emotive sentence structure. The strain H1N1 is more dangerous than seasonal flu, but seasonal flu will likely kill more people. Again, if your'e struggling with this concept ask politely and I'll explain it to you.

Again, I'm not in policy, but you seem to be getting all flustered about this. Logically the people at most risk of death will receive the vaccine first. This is how the world works. If you don't like the 'women and children first' type notion, unlucky.

And me, I don't have vaccinations I feel I don't need. Still, it's a lottery and you and I both might get it, and die.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

I am not arguing with you, but for your sentence
to have meaning then please could you define dangerous and/or elaborate on this notion of less danger equalling more deaths.

In reply to EZ:

That wasn't the notion I intended to put forward.

Put simply, if you could put a strain of 'normal seasonal flu' in one pot - A, and Swine Flu in another - B, your average person has more chance of dying from contracting 'B'. As with a venom B is more 'dangerous'.

But to entertain the notion I didn't intend; on a macro leavel about 6000 people die in the UK each year from seasonal flu and its complications. Given that Swine Flu is a tad more potent, but importantly attacks a wider catchment, the amount of deaths could obviously double because it would be the normal 6000 say plus 6000 getting Swine Flu on top. However there's clearly going to be overlaps but Swine Flu will add to the total deaths as it kills a wider range of hosts eg. kids and adults under 45 etc which accounts for about half the deaths so far. You could imagine a number under the current strain of about 9000 i.e. 6000 plus 3000 (not 6000 + 6000 because one half of the latter would be the vulnerable dying from seasonal anyway)

What the scientists are scared of and what has rattled the governments and media is that it is a pandemic (i.e. 'everywhere') and could quite easily mutate, and also mutate/ combine with H5N1 (Bird Flu) which is more virulent than seasonal and Swine. If this happens then we may get the alarming death rates forecast because we'd have a widespread, infectious, AND more potent flu strain (what they thought Swine Flu was on first analysis) which would likely kill far more - presumably why they're going for 80% population Tamiflu provision now. And in the outside chance scenario that it combines with Bird Flu to form a super-flu, then and only then should we really worry - in my opinion...

Apparently the governments worst case scenario (forecast in July) was 65,000 deaths this winter which is 0.1% of the population - reflecting 30% of the population becoming ill.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

Do you mean to say that a wider section of the populous is at risk from 'swine flu' even though it would not necessarily cause more illness and would not necessarily kill more people, than the seasonal flu. If this is so, then 'more dangerous' is the wrong phrase. I would suggest 'likely to affect a wider section of the populous' would be more appropriate?

In reply to EZ:

It's not that simple. I know people naturally need a 'what is the precise answer' but even the scientists don't know. I've made it my business to read about it because I live in South London "where viruses love to breed...". Swine Flu is a general term based around the H1N1 strain and strains mutate. 'Swine Flu' isn't particularly more dangerous (being careful of semantics) than seasonal flu, but it is new and different, as in it affects a wider base, from which it appears to randomly kill. Seasonal flu only seems to kill in a couple of usual scenarios, the old and the already ill. Swine Flu isn't limited by this, so you could say it is more dangerous on that score. Dangerous to more rather than more dangerous?

Is it more dangerous in numbers terms? Only next Spring will tell us such but the forecast is for between 3 and 10 times more deaths. So again you could say it is more dangerous.

And it is certainly more dangerous in terms of mutation becuase at the moment its cleavage point is the upper respiratory tract which is why the effects are milder than first thought, if it mutates, or bolsters itself and enhances it's range it could then easily infect deeper into the lungs (like H5N1) and really be considered a danger that could create a lethal epidemic.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

Thanks

In reply to EZ:

No worries. Please cough/ sneeze into a handkerchief

In reply to Jon Hemlock:
One could argue that there is a social responsibility element to getting vaccinated against such things as Swine Flu. Ok, for you, personally, you may not benefit from being vaccinated as the consequences for you *personally* not being vaccinated are mild (you get flu for a bit, you recover). However, if you think at the population scale, something that is generally rarely done especially by doctors, vets, etc.... if you get vaccinated, it means you won't become infected and the level of infection of the disease will reduce (by a little bit). This means those individuals who are at more risk of hospitalisation or dying should they contract swine flu are a little bit less likely to get it and therefore benefit from you being vaccinated. At the household scale, this is why the other household members of people at risk of complications are being targetted for vaccination too (particularly for those who cannot receive the vaccine because of their condition).

Vaccination shouldn't always be about oneself.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:
Handkerchiefs are bad practise! Much better to use disposable tissues (and dispose of them) or crook of the arm in emergency...! And wash hands, of course.

In reply to Sarah G:I had mine today, am feeling a little bit run down, but I felt the same after my normal flu jab which I have for being diabetic. I havn't started oinking. ()

Cheers
Tim

In reply to rusty_nails:



God, you're f*cking thick. And you can't/don't read, do you?

Sx

In reply to Sarah G:

have you put your nursing hat back on now ?

In reply to rusty_nails:

I've been talking to people directly who are treating Swine Flu patients in an Intensive Care Unit, they see lots of ill people so are in a good position to comment.

I'm not commented on whether or not people should have the vaccine, but I would say the situation is more complex than you seem to think.

In reply to Jon Read:

True.

In reply to Jon Hemlock:

Speaking to my sis, who is a GP, the vaccination programme sounds like an utter nightmare (and probably beyond the reknowned organisational abilities of a lot of surgeries I know.)

Unlike seasonal flu jabs, which come in single doses you just whip out of the fridge when you need it, apparently the swine flu vaccine comes in big bottles you have to mix up, then inject within 12-24 hours before it goes off.

In her part of Scotland at least, the last vial arrived at short notice, and they haven't been told when the next batch is coming, making it desperately hard to set up appointments in advance for the huge numbers of people they need to cover.

In reply to Martin76:

Imagine the logistical nightmare in an 'outbreak' scenario. It would be like ration day during the war. And as was demonstrated during the banking crisis the panicking herd mentality is alive and well in the UK.

Our local surgery grinds to a halt if someone has to change their postcode...

In reply to Sarah G: My 6 year old son got his invite through the post this weekend. Hmmm, what to do?

In reply to Sarah G:

My partner had her 24 week midwife appointment today and yet again advised of the political line, "It's your choice" but midwife said, "if I were you, I wouldn't have it".

Although the vaccine has been ratified, the CHMP has concluded that a one dose, single shot vaccine system HAS NOT been ratified. CHMP have sent various reports on Pandemrix and Focetria (not Celvapan) to the European Commission for variations to marketing authorisations.

It all depends on which vaccine you are receiving as well from which company. I'm not too sure how many people will either know there is a difference or which one their particular trust has bought:

Pandemrix - 1 vaccine may not be enough, may need 2

Focetria - should be a 2 dose schedule, but not enough trials have been done to prove otherwise

Celvapan - "recommended" 2 doses but not enough trials to conclude anything

(these guidelines are for healthy adults, 18 - 60 and do not include details for children or pregnant women as there is not enough data because lets face it, how many mothers or pregnant women are going to agree to clinical trials for a new vaccine?)

I'm sure people are also unaware that the number of adults and elderly adults actually monitored in the trails of the vaccine was very limited and most of the vaccine was administered orally due to early tests causing blotches and swelling in the arms.

Me personally, won't be having it.

In reply to Atholl de-Saint-Croix:

Exactly. We are being coerced into having a vaccine which has not yet undergone the normal rigorous testing, just so that the government can say they did something.

Personally, i think there is no need for a healthy adult with good hygeine who is not facing heavy exposure to have the vaccine.

In reply to Martin76:

Same here (also Scotland): the first batch arrived on Friday and they're in 10-phial batches. So the surgery is trying to run specific clinics (herding cats springs to mind).

I'm getting mine tomorrow.

In case anyone's interested, here's a link to a DoH leaflet that lists the ingredients of both vaccines in the UK (p7) and addresses some of the areas that appear to be causing the most controversy (pp8-9): http://tinyurl.com/yhv288y

In reply to rusty_nails:
No No NO! The government have done one of the single most effective things necessary to protect the british public and you think they've done it just to save face? When the vaccine was ordered it was still unclear how severe an infection H1N1 was... remember it takes MONTHS to go from placing order with pharma company to receiving substantial numbers of tested doses for the public at most risk, let alone the majority of the UK population. Swine flu turned out to be not as nasty as first reports suggested, but by then it's too late for the government to back out of the deal. They can't, else next time they'll be at the back of the queue for the vaccine that we all need because people are dropping dead at work with H5N1 (in 1918 some people dropped dead while doing their work, like bus drivers...).
Personally, I like to think on the positive side: this is a fantastic exercise to see how well a pandemic flu vaccine can be developed, produced and distributed when necessary. Lessons will certainly be learnt and things will be better for it all. An expensive exercise, admittedly, but nothing compared to the banking fiasco.

If you think you're being coerced, you're bordering on paranoid. You are being coerced into doing nothing against your will. However you are denying social responsibility (see post above). Your choice; your conscience.

In reply to Jon Read:



Jon, i work in the NHS coordinating large scale pharma trials. I know how the system works.

Trust me, if you had to work in hospital, you would see the pressure that is being applied to have this vaccine!

As to social responsibility, where the F%ck does it say that it is my responsibility to inject myself with a partially tested vaccine, for the good of society? Get of your soap box!

In reply to rusty_nails:


I think you might need to read New Scientist 2732, or order a copy if you can't read it all online, though it look's like you can do. They had a feautre of swine flu and related myths, and being okay if you're healthy, and okay if you wash your hands are two of them, and the vaccine being rushed through is another, or rather the risks from it are ment to be very small.

http://www.newscientist.com/special/swine-flu-myths-that-could-endanger-you...

I've been fine after having mine by the way.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Jon Read:

Sorry, just to be clear on your point- we've ordered this stuff so we might as well use it?

In reply to woolsack:
Why not? It'll be little use in 1-2 years time when most of the population have been exposed to swine flu. It's no good as a seasonal shot, as by next winter the circulating strain is likely to be different enough to make it have lower efficacy.

In reply to rusty_nails:
Hey, this is my soap box and there's only room for one...

So what sort of pressure is being applied within the system then? Am very curious... And surely a rather large number of people are being "tested" currently around the world.

In reply to Jon Read:

Do you mind if I don't turn my son into a pin cushion then?

In reply to rusty_nails:


Really? Absolutely no pressure being applied in Raigmore Hospital. Got an email telling us when and where to go if we want it, a link to some information regarding the vaccines and that's it. Definately not been put under any pressure to take the vaccine. Some staff and students have got it, some have opted out without anything being said to pressure them to change their minds. I decided to get the H1N1 along with the seasonal jab too, felt crap that evening, got a good night sleep and I've been fine since.

What we're all forgetting is that if an OAP with chronic heart disease and diabetes etc etc says they don't fancy taking the jab they are in no way forced to take it, we all have choices. Nobody has forced the vaccine upon anybody (although from what you say this has not been the case in your hospital?). I read the literature and made an informed choice, yes it has perhaps not undergone the most rigerous of trials but it seems safe enough to me. Has anybody young and fit died from the H1N1 vaccine? No. Has anybody young and fit died of Swineflu? Yes! Like I said above it's a personal choice that we all have a right to make.

Would be interested to hear what this campaign of coercion that you speak of involves? Guessing it's at Ninewells?

Iain

In reply to IainMunro: had mine last week and i've developed guillain barre! I'm typing this using my teeth. Oh if only I had never had the evil vaccine.

In reply to ligaya:

I had mine yesterday: I keep gazing at my side, waiting for my new arm to sprout. Alas all I got was some short-lived arm pain (it's almost gone now). I didn't even get a sticker from the nurse for being brave :'o(