Education is a first step towards that. Given the state of things right now, people would avoid their shots and weaken the approach. First we have to get people comfortable with vaccines and get people to stop fighting them because of imagined health issues.
But, I wouldn't be first in line for any new vaccine. Anything that's rushed, and anything that's new, has added risks.
Calling it "rushed" in any way that significantly increases the vaccine's risk factors seems to be unsupported, accordig to the experts I've heardtalk on the subject.
The thing that's novel about the new H1N1, I believe it's 'A/Mexico/2009', is the mixture of strains it comes from. However with a basic reproduction rate (in a non-immune population, this is the secondary infection rate for every 1 infected person) of ~1.7 it is likely that just basic hygiene countermeasures could defeat it. Even marginal immunisation of the population could do enough to bring the infection rate below 1.0 and cause the virus to die out.
For comparison the Spanish Flu had basic infection rates between 2-3. HIV/AIDS has 2-5 and measles, for example, is between 12-18. Smallpox had an infection rate of 5-7 and was wiped from the face of the earth.
Simply put immunization and hygiene programs are only intended to decrease the reproduction rate to near-1. When summer hits, the reproduction rate of influenza decreases dramatically.
For example, reports indicate:
- Vaccine producers haven't been able to accurately predict the yields, as is typical of a new process.
- At first it was thought the new vaccine would require two shots, now it's thought one is enough.
- Different nations are preparing the vaccines differently -- for example in their varying use of adjuvants.
- Much of the initial supplies are a nasal vaccine which uses a weakened virus. Nasal vaccines are themselves a newer technology than traditional dead-virus shots. (Nasal vaccines have a good 6-year record; I prefer a safety record of decades.)
Advocates of universal vaccination can't have it both ways: that this virus is so new and unpredictable we should hurry to be vaccinated, but the vaccine based on that same virus is so old and reliable we can treat it, after just a few months' of trials, as having the exact same risk profile as decades of seasonal shots.
If the new vaccines were identical to seasonal vaccine plus the new strain, created completely via normal processes and schedules, then there would be just one seasonal shot, and 2009-H1N1 would be one of the added strains. (Last year's seasonal shot already included another H1N1 strain.) They chose not to follow that process, so they don't get the same decades-of-safety presumption.
No amount of short-term studies or expert assessment can replace years of aggregated experience. Medicine takes decades to converge on definitive answers, and has called many things wrong for years before correction.
So please, take my place at the front of the line. There's no right answer for everyone; searching the solution space requires a diversity of individual strategies. I'm not pregnant and I'm old enough that I've almost certainly had cases of, and vaccinations for, lots of cousins of the new virus. (I may have even already had one of the "so mild treatment isn't even sought" cases earlier this year, which is the best vaccination of all.)