Flu Vaccine
Replies
-
Absolutely, I have already gotten my flu shot. I teach 7th grade and have germy kids breathing on me all day long. Also a friend of mine is an infectious disease specialist and he says that you should get your flu shot. Protect yourself and those around you.0
-
shifterbrainz wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »shifterbrainz wrote: »It is so fun to read smart people claim science proves anything. True scientific research seeks to prove a hypothesis wrong. The only legitimate claim true science can make is that a theory can not be proven wrong. Impossible to conduct any legitimate scientific research starting with the premise of proving something is true because of the inherent and unavoidable bias. If you want to prove something true, you will conveniently (albeit unconsciously perhaps) avoid that which fails to prove. Conversely, if you are setting out to prove something false, no stone will get left unturned. I know, I know. Too much logic.
If I used the word "proved," it was a misstatement and I apologize. I try to use the terms scientifically-based or scientifically-supported.
tincan - earlier, you admit you have neither the education nor the experience "to explain the study", yet here you try to gain credibility by using terms "scientifically-based" or "scientifically-supported"? I assume you did so with a straight face? Perhaps some scientifically-based or scientifically-supported education and/or experience might be in order? I'm not attacking you as a person. I'm sure you are a fine upstanding individual I'd enjoy having a brew or two with, I really do. I'm only suggesting some forethought before attempting scientific argumentation. I am so very weary
Amen.
0 -
Yes. This week. I spend a lots of time in schools and hospitals for work. DEFINITELY always get one. One year I didn't...0
-
I have gotten a flu shot for many years and see no reason not to have one yearly. Seems to work for me and I encourage all I know to get one.0
-
Mmmm, that would be a big, fat NO! If people knew what were in those things, they wouldn't be shooting up with them year after year. You're better off getting the flu, and building natural immunity.0
-
I plan on getting a flu shot today - even though flu shots are a tool of the Illuminati to control the masses in their evil scheme to rule the world. Whatever...they work great to keep me well...SwashBlogger wrote: »Did/will you get a flu shot this year? Why or why not
Yep. Everyone knows that they are implanting an RFID chip *and* taking a DNA sample for the illuminati database under the guise of "protecting" you. Not enough people were getting flu shots, they's why they started ebola and created the ebola vaccine. Well that and so they can declare martial law and let Obama come take your guns.
Finally someone who knows what's really going on in our country! Flu shot signs are everywhere!0 -
just when i thought this thread couldn't get better from autism and illuminati. then bill mahr shows up and jenny mccarthy with a garden HOSE no less. (in my mind they are doing something together that might cause the flu virus the be passed). This thread delivers.0
-
shifterbrainz wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »shifterbrainz wrote: »It is so fun to read smart people claim science proves anything. True scientific research seeks to prove a hypothesis wrong. The only legitimate claim true science can make is that a theory can not be proven wrong. Impossible to conduct any legitimate scientific research starting with the premise of proving something is true because of the inherent and unavoidable bias. If you want to prove something true, you will conveniently (albeit unconsciously perhaps) avoid that which fails to prove. Conversely, if you are setting out to prove something false, no stone will get left unturned. I know, I know. Too much logic.
If I used the word "proved," it was a misstatement and I apologize. I try to use the terms scientifically-based or scientifically-supported.
tincan - earlier, you admit you have neither the education nor the experience "to explain the study", yet here you try to gain credibility by using terms "scientifically-based" or "scientifically-supported"? I assume you did so with a straight face? Perhaps some scientifically-based or scientifically-supported education and/or experience might be in order? I'm not attacking you as a person. I'm sure you are a fine upstanding individual I'd enjoy having a brew or two with, I really do. I'm only suggesting some forethought before attempting scientific argumentation. I am so very weary (Crawling back under my rock)
Gah. That's horribly phrased, isn't it? Science-based? Supported by scientific research? Sorry, shifter, I guess I'm not using the terminology correctly since I don't have that background. I'm trying to say that, according to all the reputable resources, the CDC, APIC, AMA, WHO, NIH, AAP, etc., the flu vaccine is effective, safe, and recommended. These recommendations are, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, based on scientific research and data analysis, and I try to base my medical decisions on those. Am I wrong? I'm honestly asking here, and even in pestering FFF up there, I really was trying to see if there actually is evidence that my understanding of the flu vaccine issue is incorrect.
TL;DR: I go with the experts' understanding of the science behind vaccinations, and so far as I can tell, that means get the flu vaccine unless there's a valid reason to not do so. Sorry if I presented myself poorly.
ETA: Changed APA to AAP. I have no idea what the American Psychological Association's stance is on the flu vaccine.0 -
MyChocolateDiet wrote: »just when i thought this thread couldn't get better from autism and illuminati. then bill mahr shows up and jenny mccarthy with a garden HOSE no less. (in my mind they are doing something together that might cause the flu virus the be passed). This thread delivers.
That's a virus, but I don't think it's the flu!
0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »
That is a silly statement
Especially from someone who says they can understand peer reviewed studies.
Yes vaccines can kill - if you have an anaphylactic reaction to one and emergency measures are not implemented ( eg giving adrenaline etc)
But the likelihood of this happening is FAR FAR less than the likelihood of getting sick and possibly dying with influenza.
0 -
Mmmm, that would be a big, fat NO! If people knew what were in those things, they wouldn't be shooting up with them year after year. You're better off getting the flu, and building natural immunity.
Unless you get the flu and die from it or pass it on to someone vulnerable who dies from it.
And anyway I do know what is in these things and have no concerns about them at all.
This idea that vaccines are all full of secret poisonous ingredients is just nonsense.
0 -
Where I live in South Australia,there has been a massive outbreak of influenza this year - almost all in children and young/middle age adults - not because these people are more vulnerable to flu but because the over 65's are almost all vaccinated under the government free program.
I don't know how many people died - but even in my own rural town, many people were hospitalised and 1 person died.0 -
Greatly reduced symptoms from most strains of flu, or defenseless against all strains.
-I got my shot a couple weeks ago.0 -
**claps**tincanonastring wrote: »MyChocolateDiet wrote: »just when i thought this thread couldn't get better from autism and illuminati. then bill mahr shows up and jenny mccarthy with a garden HOSE no less. (in my mind they are doing something together that might cause the flu virus the be passed). This thread delivers.
That's a virus, but I don't think it's the flu!
0 -
**claps**tincanonastring wrote: »MyChocolateDiet wrote: »just when i thought this thread couldn't get better from autism and illuminati. then bill mahr shows up and jenny mccarthy with a garden HOSE no less. (in my mind they are doing something together that might cause the flu virus the be passed). This thread delivers.
That's a virus, but I don't think it's the flu!
I thought there was only one.0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »headofphat wrote: »No. Have never had one and probably never will.
Side note: I've never had the flu.
Since there is scientific reasoning on both sides of the immunization debate please save your arguments for all of your friends who agree with you and you can sit around and talk about how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.
Please point me to the scientific reasoning on the con side of the immunization debate.
You haven't heard the controversy over vaccines and how they are becoming less effective? What a surprise.
"In February, Clinical Infectious Diseases published a new prospective study noting the failure of the flu vaccine in people vaccinated against influenza during the previous year.
The researchers followed 328 households with 1,441 members from before the 2010-2011 flu season through the end of it. A total of 866 study participants received the flu shot before the flu season started. Nearly one quarter of the households with 125 members contracted the flu during the 2010-11 season, as confirmed by laboratory tests.
When the researchers separated out those, who were not vaccinated in the previous flu season, they found less of a benefit with the flu vaccine. The influenza vaccine was 62 percent effective among people, who did not receive a flu shot in the prior year. In comparison, vaccine effectiveness among those, who did get a flu shot in the previous year, was substantially lower at -45 percent.
Furthermore, the study found that those who were vaccinated in both years and those who were not vaccinated in either year had similar influenza infection risks."
Source: http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2013/effectiveness-of-flu-vaccine-raises-more-red-flags.aspx
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you don't have the education or experience to explain the study yourself (That's not an insult. Neither do I.). Given that, then, why would you turn to a resource like the NVIC to interpret it for you, a resource whose sole mission is to discredit vaccines? If I don't understand something, I turn to the experts, people with the necessary experience and knowledge to break this down in understandable terms. When someone with such training who knows how to interpret these studies looks at it, the NVIC's "article" appears to be a case of the Princess Bride Fallacy, or this doesn't mean what you think it means.
"The author does quote actual research but the results are irrelevant. The quoted study was a 1400 subject non-randomized study. There was evidence of poor performance of the vaccine. Plus there was a correlation with previous years vaccine administration and a higher failure rate. Surprising findings but by no means conclusive. This is what a scientist would call a single correlational, uncontrolled, non-randomized and unreplicated study. It is not rigorous enough to state that previous seasons vaccinations suppress effectiveness the following year. That is exactly what the author is implying. The research is interesting but not in any way convincing. It lacks all the necessary elements to cause real concern, duplication, multiple lines of evidence, and well controlled randomized studies."
http://skepticwars.blogspot.com/2013/09/influenza-vaccine-illusion.html
One non-randomized study, with no replication, does not overturn the consensus. Does it show that we should look further into this? I'm guessing so and I'm going to look for any follow-up studies. What I'm not going to do is point at one small study and throw out an entire body of knowledge. See the difference?
Thank you for the info. I'll read further.
Oh dear. Actually, I have an education in public health, nutrition, and nursing. I can comprehend peer-reviewed studies very well (since that's what I do all day, every day).
I get my information from people who have worked at the CDC and various states departments of public health.
Just because you have someone at home who can't get the shot, doesn't mean you have to go around preaching about why everyone should get the flu shot. Guess what, I'm at a higher risk (I'm asthmatic and insulin resistant, I have hypothyroidism, supra ventricular tachycardia, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome) of getting the flu than your daughter is and I've gone 21 years without a flu shot and I'm still here to talk about it.
Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions regarding what vaccinations they wish to get. Quite frankly, whether or not someone gets the flu vaccine is the least of my concerns.
Don't worry. His MO is to ask for a source then tell the person who posted it that they aren't even intelligent enough to understand it.
He resorts to insults about someones intellect because he's obviously Mensa or Phi Beta Kappa or one of those pish posh honor societies.
You gotta love a person who will insult people over the internet. Winning at life as always.
0 -
The flu can kill. Not getting vaccinated can kill.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »
Please don't have children.
0 -
Seatbelts aren't 100%. I guess people who use them are fools too.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »
Next up, how the illuminati and Obama use seatbelts to cause the autism.
0 -
Got my flu shot. Figured that the last few 'pandemic' flus have disproportionately killed younger people with healthy immune systems, it would be irresponsible to not get it.0
-
digginDeep wrote: »ganzhimself wrote: »Got my flu shot. Figured that the last few 'pandemic' flus have disproportionately killed younger people with healthy immune systems, it would be irresponsible to not get it.
Careful- someone will flag this for being logical, reasoned and generally not a douchey response!
I had a douchey response ready, but I decided to be level headed instead.0 -
headofphat wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »headofphat wrote: »No. Have never had one and probably never will.
Side note: I've never had the flu.
Since there is scientific reasoning on both sides of the immunization debate please save your arguments for all of your friends who agree with you and you can sit around and talk about how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.
Please point me to the scientific reasoning on the con side of the immunization debate.
You haven't heard the controversy over vaccines and how they are becoming less effective? What a surprise.
"In February, Clinical Infectious Diseases published a new prospective study noting the failure of the flu vaccine in people vaccinated against influenza during the previous year.
The researchers followed 328 households with 1,441 members from before the 2010-2011 flu season through the end of it. A total of 866 study participants received the flu shot before the flu season started. Nearly one quarter of the households with 125 members contracted the flu during the 2010-11 season, as confirmed by laboratory tests.
When the researchers separated out those, who were not vaccinated in the previous flu season, they found less of a benefit with the flu vaccine. The influenza vaccine was 62 percent effective among people, who did not receive a flu shot in the prior year. In comparison, vaccine effectiveness among those, who did get a flu shot in the previous year, was substantially lower at -45 percent.
Furthermore, the study found that those who were vaccinated in both years and those who were not vaccinated in either year had similar influenza infection risks."
Source: http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2013/effectiveness-of-flu-vaccine-raises-more-red-flags.aspx
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you don't have the education or experience to explain the study yourself (That's not an insult. Neither do I.). Given that, then, why would you turn to a resource like the NVIC to interpret it for you, a resource whose sole mission is to discredit vaccines? If I don't understand something, I turn to the experts, people with the necessary experience and knowledge to break this down in understandable terms. When someone with such training who knows how to interpret these studies looks at it, the NVIC's "article" appears to be a case of the Princess Bride Fallacy, or this doesn't mean what you think it means.
"The author does quote actual research but the results are irrelevant. The quoted study was a 1400 subject non-randomized study. There was evidence of poor performance of the vaccine. Plus there was a correlation with previous years vaccine administration and a higher failure rate. Surprising findings but by no means conclusive. This is what a scientist would call a single correlational, uncontrolled, non-randomized and unreplicated study. It is not rigorous enough to state that previous seasons vaccinations suppress effectiveness the following year. That is exactly what the author is implying. The research is interesting but not in any way convincing. It lacks all the necessary elements to cause real concern, duplication, multiple lines of evidence, and well controlled randomized studies."
http://skepticwars.blogspot.com/2013/09/influenza-vaccine-illusion.html
One non-randomized study, with no replication, does not overturn the consensus. Does it show that we should look further into this? I'm guessing so and I'm going to look for any follow-up studies. What I'm not going to do is point at one small study and throw out an entire body of knowledge. See the difference?
Thank you for the info. I'll read further.
Oh dear. Actually, I have an education in public health, nutrition, and nursing. I can comprehend peer-reviewed studies very well (since that's what I do all day, every day).
I get my information from people who have worked at the CDC and various states departments of public health.
Just because you have someone at home who can't get the shot, doesn't mean you have to go around preaching about why everyone should get the flu shot. Guess what, I'm at a higher risk (I'm asthmatic and insulin resistant, I have hypothyroidism, supra ventricular tachycardia, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome) of getting the flu than your daughter is and I've gone 21 years without a flu shot and I'm still here to talk about it.
Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions regarding what vaccinations they wish to get. Quite frankly, whether or not someone gets the flu vaccine is the least of my concerns.
Don't worry. His MO is to ask for a source then tell the person who posted it that they aren't even intelligent enough to understand it.
He resorts to insults about someones intellect because he's obviously Mensa or Phi Beta Kappa or one of those pish posh honor societies.
You gotta love a person who will insult people over the internet. Winning at life as always.
Aww, I love you, too! My hobbies also incude misrepresenting what people have said and insulting others without actually directing it at them! Maybe we can hang out and do it together one day!0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »headofphat wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »headofphat wrote: »No. Have never had one and probably never will.
Side note: I've never had the flu.
Since there is scientific reasoning on both sides of the immunization debate please save your arguments for all of your friends who agree with you and you can sit around and talk about how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.
Please point me to the scientific reasoning on the con side of the immunization debate.
You haven't heard the controversy over vaccines and how they are becoming less effective? What a surprise.
"In February, Clinical Infectious Diseases published a new prospective study noting the failure of the flu vaccine in people vaccinated against influenza during the previous year.
The researchers followed 328 households with 1,441 members from before the 2010-2011 flu season through the end of it. A total of 866 study participants received the flu shot before the flu season started. Nearly one quarter of the households with 125 members contracted the flu during the 2010-11 season, as confirmed by laboratory tests.
When the researchers separated out those, who were not vaccinated in the previous flu season, they found less of a benefit with the flu vaccine. The influenza vaccine was 62 percent effective among people, who did not receive a flu shot in the prior year. In comparison, vaccine effectiveness among those, who did get a flu shot in the previous year, was substantially lower at -45 percent.
Furthermore, the study found that those who were vaccinated in both years and those who were not vaccinated in either year had similar influenza infection risks."
Source: http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2013/effectiveness-of-flu-vaccine-raises-more-red-flags.aspx
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you don't have the education or experience to explain the study yourself (That's not an insult. Neither do I.). Given that, then, why would you turn to a resource like the NVIC to interpret it for you, a resource whose sole mission is to discredit vaccines? If I don't understand something, I turn to the experts, people with the necessary experience and knowledge to break this down in understandable terms. When someone with such training who knows how to interpret these studies looks at it, the NVIC's "article" appears to be a case of the Princess Bride Fallacy, or this doesn't mean what you think it means.
"The author does quote actual research but the results are irrelevant. The quoted study was a 1400 subject non-randomized study. There was evidence of poor performance of the vaccine. Plus there was a correlation with previous years vaccine administration and a higher failure rate. Surprising findings but by no means conclusive. This is what a scientist would call a single correlational, uncontrolled, non-randomized and unreplicated study. It is not rigorous enough to state that previous seasons vaccinations suppress effectiveness the following year. That is exactly what the author is implying. The research is interesting but not in any way convincing. It lacks all the necessary elements to cause real concern, duplication, multiple lines of evidence, and well controlled randomized studies."
http://skepticwars.blogspot.com/2013/09/influenza-vaccine-illusion.html
One non-randomized study, with no replication, does not overturn the consensus. Does it show that we should look further into this? I'm guessing so and I'm going to look for any follow-up studies. What I'm not going to do is point at one small study and throw out an entire body of knowledge. See the difference?
Thank you for the info. I'll read further.
Oh dear. Actually, I have an education in public health, nutrition, and nursing. I can comprehend peer-reviewed studies very well (since that's what I do all day, every day).
I get my information from people who have worked at the CDC and various states departments of public health.
Just because you have someone at home who can't get the shot, doesn't mean you have to go around preaching about why everyone should get the flu shot. Guess what, I'm at a higher risk (I'm asthmatic and insulin resistant, I have hypothyroidism, supra ventricular tachycardia, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome) of getting the flu than your daughter is and I've gone 21 years without a flu shot and I'm still here to talk about it.
Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions regarding what vaccinations they wish to get. Quite frankly, whether or not someone gets the flu vaccine is the least of my concerns.
Don't worry. His MO is to ask for a source then tell the person who posted it that they aren't even intelligent enough to understand it.
He resorts to insults about someones intellect because he's obviously Mensa or Phi Beta Kappa or one of those pish posh honor societies.
You gotta love a person who will insult people over the internet. Winning at life as always.
Aww, I love you, too! My hobbies also incude misrepresenting what people have said and insulting others without actually directing it at them! Maybe we can hang out and do it together one day!
You make no sense, but yes we can hang out. However I'm a country boy and probably don't drink pansy IPA beer like you do. Sorry, had to throw an insult your way. Tit for tat.
-2 -
headofphat wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »headofphat wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »headofphat wrote: »No. Have never had one and probably never will.
Side note: I've never had the flu.
Since there is scientific reasoning on both sides of the immunization debate please save your arguments for all of your friends who agree with you and you can sit around and talk about how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.
Please point me to the scientific reasoning on the con side of the immunization debate.
You haven't heard the controversy over vaccines and how they are becoming less effective? What a surprise.
"In February, Clinical Infectious Diseases published a new prospective study noting the failure of the flu vaccine in people vaccinated against influenza during the previous year.
The researchers followed 328 households with 1,441 members from before the 2010-2011 flu season through the end of it. A total of 866 study participants received the flu shot before the flu season started. Nearly one quarter of the households with 125 members contracted the flu during the 2010-11 season, as confirmed by laboratory tests.
When the researchers separated out those, who were not vaccinated in the previous flu season, they found less of a benefit with the flu vaccine. The influenza vaccine was 62 percent effective among people, who did not receive a flu shot in the prior year. In comparison, vaccine effectiveness among those, who did get a flu shot in the previous year, was substantially lower at -45 percent.
Furthermore, the study found that those who were vaccinated in both years and those who were not vaccinated in either year had similar influenza infection risks."
Source: http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2013/effectiveness-of-flu-vaccine-raises-more-red-flags.aspx
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you don't have the education or experience to explain the study yourself (That's not an insult. Neither do I.). Given that, then, why would you turn to a resource like the NVIC to interpret it for you, a resource whose sole mission is to discredit vaccines? If I don't understand something, I turn to the experts, people with the necessary experience and knowledge to break this down in understandable terms. When someone with such training who knows how to interpret these studies looks at it, the NVIC's "article" appears to be a case of the Princess Bride Fallacy, or this doesn't mean what you think it means.
"The author does quote actual research but the results are irrelevant. The quoted study was a 1400 subject non-randomized study. There was evidence of poor performance of the vaccine. Plus there was a correlation with previous years vaccine administration and a higher failure rate. Surprising findings but by no means conclusive. This is what a scientist would call a single correlational, uncontrolled, non-randomized and unreplicated study. It is not rigorous enough to state that previous seasons vaccinations suppress effectiveness the following year. That is exactly what the author is implying. The research is interesting but not in any way convincing. It lacks all the necessary elements to cause real concern, duplication, multiple lines of evidence, and well controlled randomized studies."
http://skepticwars.blogspot.com/2013/09/influenza-vaccine-illusion.html
One non-randomized study, with no replication, does not overturn the consensus. Does it show that we should look further into this? I'm guessing so and I'm going to look for any follow-up studies. What I'm not going to do is point at one small study and throw out an entire body of knowledge. See the difference?
Thank you for the info. I'll read further.
Oh dear. Actually, I have an education in public health, nutrition, and nursing. I can comprehend peer-reviewed studies very well (since that's what I do all day, every day).
I get my information from people who have worked at the CDC and various states departments of public health.
Just because you have someone at home who can't get the shot, doesn't mean you have to go around preaching about why everyone should get the flu shot. Guess what, I'm at a higher risk (I'm asthmatic and insulin resistant, I have hypothyroidism, supra ventricular tachycardia, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome) of getting the flu than your daughter is and I've gone 21 years without a flu shot and I'm still here to talk about it.
Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions regarding what vaccinations they wish to get. Quite frankly, whether or not someone gets the flu vaccine is the least of my concerns.
Don't worry. His MO is to ask for a source then tell the person who posted it that they aren't even intelligent enough to understand it.
He resorts to insults about someones intellect because he's obviously Mensa or Phi Beta Kappa or one of those pish posh honor societies.
You gotta love a person who will insult people over the internet. Winning at life as always.
Aww, I love you, too! My hobbies also incude misrepresenting what people have said and insulting others without actually directing it at them! Maybe we can hang out and do it together one day!
You make no sense, but yes we can hang out. However I'm a country boy and probably don't drink pansy IPA beer like you do. Sorry, had to throw an insult your way. Tit for tat.
No worries. I was born in the Pine Barrens. I can drink swill, too!0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »
Anything can kill. And nothing is 100%. There's always the rare person who has a reaction to the suspension the vaccine is carried in. The flu vaccine cannot be 100%, because it only works on the few most prevalent types of the flu virus, when there are 100s of flu viruses traveling around at any given time. Virus drift studies show which kinds are likely to be those most prevalent types and the vaccine is made to make us develop an immunity to those for the year.
Not getting a vaccine and contracting the flu is MUCH more likely to kill you. I've seen healthy people in their 20s and 30s die of pneumonia and infections they contracted while fighting the flu, simply because they didn't get the shot.
0 -
I get the flu shot every year and never had a reaction...different for others though.0
-
Got my shot today for the first time!0
-
Yes I will be getting the flu shot. Hopefully in the next couple of days.0
-
I won't, even though I am over 65. I live in an under developed country and am not convinced that all our vaccines are always for the right strain. And with that I mean for the strain that in developed countries are at least figured out with well educated/scientific guesses . For example right now people are waiting for this year's " correct " vaccine, but since it comes from the US we need to wait, because there is a shortage.
In 2010 I got the shot and got really ill from another strain of the flu than the vaccine was thought for and with severe pulmonary complications it took me almost 2 month to recover. I would do it, if I had people to protect around me. But I am a 1-person household and there is no danger of me infecting those even older than I, or the very young ones.
Of course , if my circumstances were different I would most likely get vaccinated, because in general I am a team player and pro-vaccine .0 -
digginDeep wrote: »Did we ever figure out if you should or shouldn't get the vaccine? I need life guidance on the topic!
If you support our Illuminati-reptoid overlords and want to die of ebola, get the vaccine. I think that's the general guideline we settled on.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »digginDeep wrote: »Did we ever figure out if you should or shouldn't get the vaccine? I need life guidance on the topic!
If you support our Illuminati-reptoid overlords and want to die of ebola, get the vaccine. I think that's the general guideline we settled on.
Sweet baby Jebus, why did no one tell me BEFORE I got the shot!
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions