i guess at least it is not a bad side effect. but it does sound like kids are needing vaccinated again if you had your child in that age range vaccinated.
i guess at least it is not a bad side effect. but it does sound like kids are needing vaccinated again if you had your child in that age range vaccinated.
yes, it could be worse that's for sure! But it just makes me wonder even more, lol
"Health officials say it's not clear how many doses have already been given, but they don't think children need to be re-vaccinated. The lots passed potency tests when they were first shipped, but tests indicate the potency waned after."
So basically if these kids are exposed to H1N1 next month, they are not nearly as protected as they "should" be. I would be pissed if my kid got injected with 2 rounds of chemicals to not be remotely as protected as I thought! And they don't *think* the kids need to be re-vaccinated? Basically they have no effing clue is what they are saying.
"Health officials say it's not clear how many doses have already been given, but they don't think children need to be re-vaccinated. The lots passed potency tests when they were first shipped, but tests indicate the potency waned after."
So basically if these kids are exposed to H1N1 next month, they are not nearly as protected as they "should" be. I would be pissed if my kid got injected with 2 rounds of chemicals to not be remotely as protected as I thought! And they don't *think* the kids need to be re-vaccinated? Basically they have no effing clue is what they are saying.
i read it as meaning the vaccines were effective when they were tested so if kids got them as soon as they were delivered (which is likely given how fast the supplies were going) they should be covered. it sounds like the vaccines lost potency as they sat on shelves between production and injection.
"Health officials say it's not clear how many doses have already been given, but they don't think children need to be re-vaccinated. The lots passed potency tests when they were first shipped, but tests indicate the potency waned after."
So basically if these kids are exposed to H1N1 next month, they are not nearly as protected as they "should" be. I would be pissed if my kid got injected with 2 rounds of chemicals to not be remotely as protected as I thought! And they don't *think* the kids need to be re-vaccinated? Basically they have no effing clue is what they are saying.
i read it as meaning the vaccines were effective when they were tested so if kids got them as soon as they were delivered (which is likely given how fast the supplies were going) they should be covered. it sounds like the vaccines lost potency as they sat on shelves between production and injection.
"Health officials say it's not clear how many doses have already been given, but they don't think children need to be re-vaccinated. The lots passed potency tests when they were first shipped, but tests indicate the potency waned after."
So basically if these kids are exposed to H1N1 next month, they are not nearly as protected as they "should" be. I would be pissed if my kid got injected with 2 rounds of chemicals to not be remotely as protected as I thought! And they don't *think* the kids need to be re-vaccinated? Basically they have no effing clue is what they are saying.
"Health officials say it's not clear how many doses have already been given, but they don't think children need to be re-vaccinated. The lots passed potency tests when they were first shipped, but tests indicate the potency waned after."
So basically if these kids are exposed to H1N1 next month, they are not nearly as protected as they "should" be. I would be pissed if my kid got injected with 2 rounds of chemicals to not be remotely as protected as I thought! And they don't *think* the kids need to be re-vaccinated? Basically they have no effing clue is what they are saying.
i read it as meaning the vaccines were effective when they were tested so if kids got them as soon as they were delivered (which is likely given how fast the supplies were going) they should be covered. it sounds like the vaccines lost potency as they sat on shelves between production and injection.
am i the only one that read this report this way?
Here's my question though.
They were running out of vaccines left and right, all over the country right?
How much could possibly be just sitting around on shelves? It coudn't have been for very long, the way they were lined up to get them.
So that makes me wonder..if they grow less potent in such a short time, just how potent were they to begin with?
"Health officials say it's not clear how many doses have already been given, but they don't think children need to be re-vaccinated. The lots passed potency tests when they were first shipped, but tests indicate the potency waned after."
So basically if these kids are exposed to H1N1 next month, they are not nearly as protected as they "should" be. I would be pissed if my kid got injected with 2 rounds of chemicals to not be remotely as protected as I thought! And they don't *think* the kids need to be re-vaccinated? Basically they have no effing clue is what they are saying.
i read it as meaning the vaccines were effective when they were tested so if kids got them as soon as they were delivered (which is likely given how fast the supplies were going) they should be covered. it sounds like the vaccines lost potency as they sat on shelves between production and injection.
am i the only one that read this report this way?
Here's my question though.
They were running out of vaccines left and right, all over the country right?
How much could possibly be just sitting around on shelves? It coudn't have been for very long, the way they were lined up to get them.
So that makes me wonder..if they grow less potent in such a short time, just how potent were they to begin with?
god. this is so unfair to kids in high risk categories. what a false sense of security. and now these families have no peace of mind WHATsoever that their kids are safe from the flu. "they" really botched this whole thing from soup to nuts, imo.
god. this is so unfair to kids in high risk categories. what a false sense of security. and now these families have no peace of mind WHATsoever that their kids are safe from the flu. "they" really botched this whole thing from soup to nuts, imo.
which is why my high risk category child did NOT get it, lol
"Health officials say it's not clear how many doses have already been given, but they don't think children need to be re-vaccinated. The lots passed potency tests when they were first shipped, but tests indicate the potency waned after."
So basically if these kids are exposed to H1N1 next month, they are not nearly as protected as they "should" be. I would be pissed if my kid got injected with 2 rounds of chemicals to not be remotely as protected as I thought! And they don't *think* the kids need to be re-vaccinated? Basically they have no effing clue is what they are saying.
i read it as meaning the vaccines were effective when they were tested so if kids got them as soon as they were delivered (which is likely given how fast the supplies were going) they should be covered. it sounds like the vaccines lost potency as they sat on shelves between production and injection.
am i the only one that read this report this way?
Here's my question though.
They were running out of vaccines left and right, all over the country right?
How much could possibly be just sitting around on shelves? It coudn't have been for very long, the way they were lined up to get them.
So that makes me wonder..if they grow less potent in such a short time, just how potent were they to begin with?
I highly doubt they were actually testing vials that had been sitting on the shelves of health departments.
Typically with medications (including vaccines), a portion of each lot (which is a batch) is set aside. Actually, more than one portion-they store them under a bunch of different conditions, and then go back at various intervals to retest them. This is a very standard practice.
I would bet money that they were re-testing a lot sample, and found it to be less potent, but it's better to be upfront about it should a problem arise (which it hasn't yet).
"Health officials say it's not clear how many doses have already been given, but they don't think children need to be re-vaccinated. The lots passed potency tests when they were first shipped, but tests indicate the potency waned after."
So basically if these kids are exposed to H1N1 next month, they are not nearly as protected as they "should" be. I would be pissed if my kid got injected with 2 rounds of chemicals to not be remotely as protected as I thought! And they don't *think* the kids need to be re-vaccinated? Basically they have no effing clue is what they are saying.
i read it as meaning the vaccines were effective when they were tested so if kids got them as soon as they were delivered (which is likely given how fast the supplies were going) they should be covered. it sounds like the vaccines lost potency as they sat on shelves between production and injection.
am i the only one that read this report this way?
Here's my question though.
They were running out of vaccines left and right, all over the country right?
How much could possibly be just sitting around on shelves? It coudn't have been for very long, the way they were lined up to get them.
So that makes me wonder..if they grow less potent in such a short time, just how potent were they to begin with?
I highly doubt they were actually testing vials that had been sitting on the shelves of health departments.
Typically with medications (including vaccines), a portion of each lot (which is a batch) is set aside. Actually, more than one portion-they store them under a bunch of different conditions, and then go back at various intervals to retest them. This is a very standard practice.
I would bet money that they were re-testing a lot sample, and found it to be less potent, but it's better to be upfront about it should a problem arise (which it hasn't yet).
What kind of conditions would vaccines be stored under?
"Health officials say it's not clear how many doses have already been given, but they don't think children need to be re-vaccinated. The lots passed potency tests when they were first shipped, but tests indicate the potency waned after."
So basically if these kids are exposed to H1N1 next month, they are not nearly as protected as they "should" be. I would be pissed if my kid got injected with 2 rounds of chemicals to not be remotely as protected as I thought! And they don't *think* the kids need to be re-vaccinated? Basically they have no effing clue is what they are saying.
i read it as meaning the vaccines were effective when they were tested so if kids got them as soon as they were delivered (which is likely given how fast the supplies were going) they should be covered. it sounds like the vaccines lost potency as they sat on shelves between production and injection.
am i the only one that read this report this way?
Here's my question though.
They were running out of vaccines left and right, all over the country right?
How much could possibly be just sitting around on shelves? It coudn't have been for very long, the way they were lined up to get them.
So that makes me wonder..if they grow less potent in such a short time, just how potent were they to begin with?
I highly doubt they were actually testing vials that had been sitting on the shelves of health departments.
Typically with medications (including vaccines), a portion of each lot (which is a batch) is set aside. Actually, more than one portion-they store them under a bunch of different conditions, and then go back at various intervals to retest them. This is a very standard practice.
I would bet money that they were re-testing a lot sample, and found it to be less potent, but it's better to be upfront about it should a problem arise (which it hasn't yet).
What kind of conditions would vaccines be stored under?
Well, I don't work in pharmaceuticals, so I don't have info on the specific quality control procedures for vaccines.
But for most FDA approved products (which I do have experience with), conditions vary (usually with temperature and humidity). Basically, they are looking to see if they breakdown to other by-products or lose efficacy under different environmental conditions (because medical products are not always stored/shipped at the precise temps and humidity that they should be). Like, they may look to see what would happen if the temp of the vaccine was allowed to increase (you might to see a drop in efficacy).
It is routine to go back and re-test lots at a set schedule to catch this very thing. And again, it's not being recalled for safety related issues, and the lots passed the potency tested prior to shipment.
I just see people get all up in arms over anything related to vaccines, and though sometimes it's appropriate, I don't really think it is here. The media has picked up on something that is actually pretty common (recalls happen to all sorts of medications, vaccines, medical instrumentation, IV's, the list is so long). Standards are incredibly strict, and if a product falls out of spec (even slightly), they recall it. But because the recall involves this particular vaccine, it's a news story.
