Vaccinating children is the best way to protect the entire population from the flu. Why do we avoid it?
Even today, the flu still poses a serious health threat, both in the US and in the rest of the world, which is why some call it "the last great plague of the human race". For example, if any strain of the flu virus, which naturally attacks birds, acquires a mutation that allows it to reproduce in the trachea and nasal cavities of humans, it could cause an epidemic whose effects will be as devastating as the effects of the flu epidemic in 1918 that claimed the lives of about 50 A million people. Unlike the smallpox virus, it is impossible to completely destroy the influenza virus because many of its strains are found in different birds and mammals. Therefore, the only way to fight the disease is through appropriate vaccination programs.
In the past, the accepted policy focused on vaccinating the elderly, who are naturally in the highest risk group of contracting the disease severely and even dying from it. However, the best way to protect the elderly and the entire population is to focus on vaccinating children. Computer models show that vaccinating 20% of the children in the community will result in better protection for those aged 65 and over than vaccinating 90% of the elderly. Another study showed that vaccinating 70% of school children can protect the entire population (including the elderly) from influenza. Schools are incubators for the spread of flu and children are the "super spreaders". They "spread" the virus for a longer time than adults.
Probably the best example of the effectiveness of the childhood vaccination strategy comes from Japan. In 1957 a flu epidemic broke out in Japan which caused the local authorities to launch a vaccination program for school children which for at least 10 years had to vaccinate school children against flu. In those years, the rate of people dying from the flu and from pneumonia, a common complication of the flu, dropped by half (in fact, the overall death rate also dropped, which probably suggests that not all flu cases were diagnosed). The study showed that for every 420 children who were vaccinated, one person's life was saved, mainly among the elderly. When the vaccination program was canceled, the rate of vaccinated children naturally decreased and within a few years the rate of deaths increased dramatically.
Currently, there is no chance of applying a mandatory flu vaccine to all school children in the US. However, it is possible to achieve high vaccination rates among children through selective vaccination programs that focus on schools. In Alcoa County, Florida, the seat of the University of Florida, such a vaccination program has been fully operational in schools since 2009. The program is based on the cooperation of schools, health departments and social activists and operates under the guidance of my colleagues Parker A. Small, Jr. and J. Glenn Morris, Jr. . It offers free vaccinations of a weakened virus given by nasal spray (called FluMist) to children from preschool age to high school graduation in public and private schools, regardless of the type of medical insurance the children have. The vaccination rate reaches 65%, a rate high enough to mean that during the last two flu seasons the number of flu cases in the district will be almost zero.
Similar programs that will be offered in schools throughout the US will increase the general level of immunity, protect the local communities and provide the basis for rapid vaccination of the entire population against the next flu epidemic and perhaps even against a biological terrorist attack. Such a strategy will save money and life. Seasonal flu kills 36,000 people every year in the US and costs more than 10 billion dollars. An average family of four loses about $100 a year on lost work days.
A general vaccination program in schools will require a major change in thinking in schools, local communities, pediatricians and health departments. Who can finance and lead such a program? Apparently not the allied countries that are cutting their health budgets. The federal government is also struggling with ever-increasing health care budgets. Health insurance companies, which can save billions of dollars on reimbursements for vaccinations and other health expenses, are the natural choice. But until today they refused to take on the task. Someone will have to do it.
on the notebook
Katelyn A. Ryan is an associate professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Florida and a member of the Emerging Pathogens Research Institute.
8 תגובות
There are two different questions here that are a matter of ideology.
First question - do parents who do not vaccinate their children go as they think it is healthier for the child - is this criminal neglect? Should the children be taken from them or simply not asked and required by law to vaccinate them? Or is it their right in this case to decide how to manage their children's health?
Second question - is society in the interest of protecting those who cannot be vaccinated and taking advantage of a vaccine that at the individual level is not effective in high percentages and creating a "herd vaccine" - when, if at all, is it moral to force a person to be vaccinated against his will?
These are questions that combine both a world view and a lot of pragmatism.
In my opinion, the findings presented by Katelin should be considered, as they are, corruption and the connection between capital and government have always been and will remain forever.
If the vaccine protects only the vaccinated, the question arises regarding the parents' responsibility for the decision to vaccinate their children
If the vaccine protects not only the vaccinated but also others, the question arises as to whether the state can determine whether to vaccinate the individual or not. Regardless of his opinion. And what about smoking at home near children and guests or leaving the house with a contagious disease or producing unhealthy food
BHC
It is also possible to go the opposite way - some people eat too much or too little - so the state will force people to eat exactly what is good for them.
There is nonsense on TV - so let the state force people to watch only what is not rubbish.
-etc etc etc...
And regarding other things you wrote:
I can grow tomatoes, should the state take care of farmers?
--------
Chances are, in your own backyard you can't grow enough to feed yourself
The farmers are private businesses - you can import food - the state supports them not for economic reasons but for national reasons. (Part of national resilience is the ability to produce some of the food that the nation consumes)
--------
I can bring bottled water from the Sea of Galilee, so the state has to take care of the water??
- You can't bring enough water for every need usually - it takes a lot of manpower to move water from the land or from the Kinneret or from the Tefal to your home...
-------
I have a gun and a knife, so the state should take care of security?
-------
Against an enemy with missiles and rockets you definitely need a country with an army.
-------
I have a donkey horse and an ATV so why pay for road and train infrastructure
-------
A horse, a donkey and an ATV also use these infrastructures.
In my opinion there is really no justification to pay for a train if you don't use it.
-------
I have a cave, why not live like in prehistoric times?
—–
Do you have a cave? - How can one buy a cave?
Vaccines are by their nature an action that arouses resistance: the hopeful effect is manifested in large numbers, for a long time. It is difficult for the individual to grasp the benefit of the vaccine, which he is required to take when he is not suffering from symptoms.
The side effects, and there is no point in dwarfing or ignoring their existence, appear immediately, with the assumption of "pay now, and you might enjoy it in the future".
The fear of these phenomena, combined with a general fear of science, are, in my opinion, at the root of the resistance to vaccines.
Public education has meaning - especially because it is very difficult to force parents to vaccinate their children. For this purpose, there is a need for an open approach regarding the benefits and costs of vaccination, the risk management that is an inherent part of any administration or withholding of a drug, regarding the economic interests of insurance bodies, governments and drug manufacturers, and also regarding altruistic aspects of vaccination.
First, let the citizens take care of themselves by washing their hands....Regarding your claim that the citizens should first take care of themselves
I can grow tomatoes, should the state take care of farmers?
I can bring bottled water from the Sea of Galilee, so the state has to take care of the water??
I have a gun and a knife, so the state should take care of security?
I have a donkey horse and an ATV so why pay for road and train infrastructure
I have a cave, why not live like in prehistoric times?
just one…
My father - your mistake is in the section: "The state should take care of the citizens" - here is your mistake -
The state has a defined role for what it does and does not do - there are things that remain in the citizen's decision - the question of coercive vaccinations or not is an important question and there are many arguments on both sides of the debate - but it is a very dangerous assumption to assume that the state has to take care of the citizens and therefore it has to do X and Y.
First of all, citizens need to take care of themselves - they need the state for things they cannot do themselves.
Vaccines are a product that is produced in private companies for profit and if there is a law that requires its use or just a government that buys it in large quantities - then there is a problematic combination of capital and government.
What prevents a politician in some committee from deciding to buy a not so good vaccine just because the right lobbyists told him the right stories? What prevents bias from being?
It is better that outside of an epidemic situation I should not decide too much for the citizens what is healthy for them.
Hagai, failure to vaccinate is murder.
All these claims have been tested. The vaccine has drastically reduced the mortality of the elderly from influenza. The state should take care of the citizens and not kill them (except for exceptions like Syria) and therefore it should stick to science and not those who fear science.
For the first time there is data on the subject and there is still a lack of data on the main issues that face the author's claims:
1. When we were vaccinated in the army, I and 3 others were the only ones who strongly opposed getting a flu vaccine. In the same week that they received the vaccinations, all the vaccinated got sick, we were left almost alone to take the positions and luckily they brought in reservists to reinforce - is this a coincidence?
2. It is known that the vaccine industry always hides the problems that arise from giving vaccines so widely to the population - such as allergic reactions to vaccines and even the death of children due to vaccines. It is true that in some vaccines the balance is clearly in favor of the priority to vaccinate, but there are many very unnecessary vaccines. If you want to convince why vaccinate the entire population, you should give good and complete data - such as how many people in Japan died due to the vaccine? There is a difference between a papilloma vaccine and a "just" flu vaccine.
3. Is a vaccine necessary? And maybe the population should be educated to behave properly when sick with the flu? Maybe the lack of exposure to the public at this time is important? Maybe preventing infection with the disease instead of immediately vaccinating? After all, if we were really going to get a vaccine for all the diseases that would want to vaccinate us, it would be about 3-4 substances that are injected into our bodies every year. As of today, the last time I was injected with something was 15 years ago and at least I could understand why they do it and I got the vaccine. Since then I have not found the need for it.