It was initially being reported that children ages 3-9 would need 2 vaccinations against H1N1.
Now Public Health Canada is saying only one vaccination is necessary.
What has brought on this decision? How do they know that one vaccine is effective?
Read on, because this is interesting.
"The decision isn't based on the hardest of hard scientific evidence, but on some promising data and the reality that when vaccine supplies are still scarce, it probably makes sense to give more people one dose than to give children a second dose they may not need. It's a position advised by the World Health Organization"
Well, that is not a surprise, that the decision is not based on hard scientific evidence.
I don't know if anything about this entire scenario has been based on HARD scientific evidence.
From the changing of the defintion of pandemic to the lack of testing on the vaccines and now children over 3 do not need the second vaccination.
A number of questions come to my mind-
The decision to vaccinate young children twice, what was it based on? Was there really any "hard scientific evidence" behind that decision? Because, if there was hard scientific evidence behind the two shot policy, how could the evidence be dismissed?
As acknowledged this is no "hard scientific evidence" behind the move to a one vaccination policy. I would think if there had been any hard scientific date behind the initial decision, then the two shot policy would have remained in place, and yet it isn't.
There is talk of promising data? After just a couple of weeks?
"The limited data that exist suggest the vaccine Canada is using may even protect young children with a single dose because it contains an adjuvant, an additive that boosts the immune response. But the data are too limited for the experts advising Canada on H1N1 vaccine policy to feel confident that the youngest children would be protected by a single shot."
Despite the data being too limited for experts to feel confident that the youngest children will be protected, PHC is changing the policy. I can't help but wonder... Is the reality that the vaccine was ineffective anyway, so that one or two shots is irrelevant?
Political expediency is being acknowledged. A panic is created, there is alot of fear, and we are looking foolish. So were going to ration to score political points.
But, if the science was there to support the vaccinations in the first place, political expediency would be foolish. I scratch my head.