The CDC’s guidelines for giving priority to the in-short-supply H1N1 (swine) flu vaccine puts people age 65 and older at the end of the line. The CDC seems to have a cogent reason for putting seniors last: They appear to be less susceptible to swine flu infection than younger people. On the other hand, healthy people age 20-64 receive priority over people age 65 and older even if the senior citizen has a health condition that could cause serious complications if they catch the flu.
I am not making accusations, but could someone please explain to me why a healthy younger person receives priority for a swine flu vaccine over an unhealthy older person? Details over at Secondhand Smoke.
September 1st, 2009 | 6:24 am
[...] the whole story here: Wesley J. Smith aggregated by [...]
September 1st, 2009 | 11:03 am
” . . . why a healthy younger person receives priority . . . over an unhealthy older person?”
Probably because there are more healthy younger persons than unhealthy older persons.
September 1st, 2009 | 1:09 pm
William: I don’t know. It seems to me that oldsters with conditions that could make the swine flu deadly should be in the same category as younger people with that potential peril.
I can get putting healthy oldsters last if they have a better immune protection than healthy younger people. But I doubt that unhealthy older people will fare better than healthy younger people in a flu that so far is not a consistent killer.
But, I am open to being persuaded.
September 1st, 2009 | 8:34 pm
My understanding is that there were two reasons for recommending the vaccine to younger age groups:
1) The young spread the virus more easily, acting as a resrvoir that infects everyone else. Vaccinating school age children and young people will protect the older population by slowing the spread of the flu throughout the public. We see this with the pneumoncoccal vaccine given to infants. As we immunized more infants again pneumococcal bacteria, less of these types of infections have been seen in adults and elderly.
2) As you mentioned, the elderly seem less susceptible to the swine flu. The theory is that they have more baseline immunity due to exposure to flu viruses over the years.
I honestly don’t think it’s an attempt to get rid of the elderly.
September 2nd, 2009 | 10:34 am
I don’t think it is an attempt to get rid of the elderly, either. But I worry about a program that does not give priority to the elderly who could more easily die from flu complications, as the CDC did for younger people. Unless older people are completely immune, that makes no sense to me and would seem to violate triage principles.
September 2nd, 2009 | 7:44 pm
Here are the details behind the decision:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr58e0821a1.htm
The elderly are not only less susceptible to it, they are less susceptible to complications as well.
As of July 31, 2009, the median age of hospitalized persons with laboratory-confirmed novel influenza A (H1N1) virus infection was 20 years, and the incidence of hospitalization was highest among young children aged <4 years (11; CDC, unpublished data, 2009). Only 282 (5%) of 5,514 hospitalizations and 29 (8%) of the 353 reported deaths had occurred among persons aged ≥65 years (CDC, unpublished data, 2009). The median age among persons who died with novel influenza A (H1N1) virus infection was 37 years. In contrast, in multiple studies of seasonal influenza, hospitalization and mortality rates have been highest among persons aged ≥65 years, and an estimated 90% of seasonal influenza-related deaths and 60% of seasonal influenza-related hospitalizations occurred among adults aged ≥65 years. As of July 31, 2009, only 282 (5%) of 5,514 hospitalizations and 29 (8%) of the 353 reported deaths attributed to novel influenza A (H1N1) virus infection had occurred among persons aged ≥65 years (CDC, unpublished data, 2009)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact