Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Flu shots? For them or against ?

1293032343542

Replies

  • Rosemary7391
    Rosemary7391 Posts: 232 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.

    Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.

    Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?

    Several of the people actually arguing *against* the flu shot in this thread are located in the US, where the flu is an issue.
  • jdlobb
    jdlobb Posts: 1,232 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.

    Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?

    nope, sorry, not buying it.

    The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.

    Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    A cost benefit analysis done in 2010.

    http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000256

    If a persons potential earnings a year tops $10,000, the flu shot provides economic advantage. Not that we want to put a price tag on a life.

    The cost of a single immunization, under $2.00.

    And, nobody is suggesting that Vitamin D is an either-or proposition with the flu shot. Anecdotally I think I caught fewer colds when I increased my Vitamin D.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    1918, people. The flu is everywhere. I did research on the family histories of a First Nations community in the remote foothills of the Canadian Rockies. The community was devastated by the Spanish Flu. There was a tragic story of a pair of orphans who lost two sets of foster parents before the epidemic wore itself out. That's six adults including their natural parents.
  • Rosemary7391
    Rosemary7391 Posts: 232 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.

    Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?

    nope, sorry, not buying it.

    The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.

    Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.

    Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.

    Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    johnwelk wrote: »
    Still waiting for that study out of England showing that Vit D protects better than the flu shot.

    Great posts, but also I'm wondering where it was made law that one can only take Vit D OR get a flu shot. I take Vit D in the winter, and no one told me I was doing that instead of the flu shot and therefore cannot get one.

    This Vit D distraction is 100% irrelevant to the thread.


    The major distraction no one has posted medical proof that getting the flu shot is of any net medical value.


    In the USA access to Vitamin D3 is not under the control of our government. While there is evidence Vitamin D3 can be of value for many medical conditions its main use seems to prevent our bones from thinning and breaking as we age.

    I'm not sure what you've been reading for the past 32 pages but a lot of people have posted this, and multiple people have asserted that you've just ignored it.

    Notice I said "any net medical value". I am still looking to find a study that does prove the net value of flu shots.

    If one wants to take the flu shots I think they should because if doing so brings some peace of mind then it could be of net medical value. It seems most medical conditions may be triggered first from a mental state over time.

    Citation needed. Or share your personal story how your own medical condition was caused by your personal mental state.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    johnwelk wrote: »
    Still waiting for that study out of England showing that Vit D protects better than the flu shot.

    Great posts, but also I'm wondering where it was made law that one can only take Vit D OR get a flu shot. I take Vit D in the winter, and no one told me I was doing that instead of the flu shot and therefore cannot get one.

    This Vit D distraction is 100% irrelevant to the thread.


    The major distraction no one has posted medical proof that getting the flu shot is of any net medical value.


    In the USA access to Vitamin D3 is not under the control of our government. While there is evidence Vitamin D3 can be of value for many medical conditions its main use seems to prevent our bones from thinning and breaking as we age.

    I'm not sure what you've been reading for the past 32 pages but a lot of people have posted this, and multiple people have asserted that you've just ignored it.

    Notice I said "any net medical value". I am still looking to find a study that does prove the net value of flu shots.

    If one wants to take the flu shots I think they should because if doing so brings some peace of mind then it could be of net medical value. It seems most medical conditions may be triggered first from a mental state over time.

    Citation needed. Or share your personal story how your own medical condition was caused by your personal mental state.

    This is such a vague claim that it's impossible to verify. That's the "advantage" of it. You can never disprove that your medical condition wasn't caused by some "mental state." If anyone says anything to the contrary, Gale can just insist that they're lying or they don't know their own mind.

  • RedSierra
    RedSierra Posts: 253 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    nope, sorry, not buying it.

    The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.

    Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.

    ^^ This is exactly right. We do live in a very interconnected planet.

    Many historians believe this is how the deadly 1918 flu that killed 50 million people traveled around the world. Some articles came out a few years ago that said the epidemic likely began with infected workers in China who were hired and shipped on boats around the world to places like Europe -- because many of the local people had joined the military to fight in WWI and factories etc. were left without workers. These ships of infected, hired Chinese workers spread the flu from country to country.

    Here's one article about it out of many: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140123-spanish-flu-1918-china-origins-pandemic-science-health/



  • Rosemary7391
    Rosemary7391 Posts: 232 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.

    Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?

    nope, sorry, not buying it.

    The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.

    Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.

    Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.

    Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?

    I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.

    There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.

    Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.

    And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.

    Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.

    Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.

    Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...

    Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?
  • jdlobb
    jdlobb Posts: 1,232 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.

    Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?

    nope, sorry, not buying it.

    The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.

    Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.

    Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.

    Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?

    I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.

    There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.

    Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.

    And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.

    Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.

    Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.

    Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...

    Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?

    you make it seem like your doctor told you not to get a flu shot. Is this true? Did they give a reason? Maybe I missed a post by you. I've never had a doctor not recommend a flu shot every year.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.

    Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?

    nope, sorry, not buying it.

    The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.

    Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.

    Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.

    Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?

    I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.

    There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.

    Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.

    And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.

    Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.

    Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.

    Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...

    Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?

    What country do you live in?

    I'm wondering what government wouldn't recommend getting a flu vaccine?

    Someone posted upthread, before someone hijacked it to evangelize about their latest miracle cure, that in their country the flu is not as much of a problem, and his doctor confirmed it is only recommended there for people over 65 or those who have a compromised immune system. I don't remember which country though.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    johnwelk wrote: »
    Still waiting for that study out of England showing that Vit D protects better than the flu shot.

    Great posts, but also I'm wondering where it was made law that one can only take Vit D OR get a flu shot. I take Vit D in the winter, and no one told me I was doing that instead of the flu shot and therefore cannot get one.

    This Vit D distraction is 100% irrelevant to the thread.


    The major distraction no one has posted medical proof that getting the flu shot is of any net medical value.


    In the USA access to Vitamin D3 is not under the control of our government. While there is evidence Vitamin D3 can be of value for many medical conditions its main use seems to prevent our bones from thinning and breaking as we age.

    I'm not sure what you've been reading for the past 32 pages but a lot of people have posted this, and multiple people have asserted that you've just ignored it.

    Notice I said "any net medical value". I am still looking to find a study that does prove the net value of flu shots.

    If one wants to take the flu shots I think they should because if doing so brings some peace of mind then it could be of net medical value. It seems most medical conditions may be triggered first from a mental state over time.

    Citation needed. Or share your personal story how your own medical condition was caused by your personal mental state.

    This is such a vague claim that it's impossible to verify. That's the "advantage" of it. You can never disprove that your medical condition wasn't caused by some "mental state." If anyone says anything to the contrary, Gale can just insist that they're lying or they don't know their own mind.

    Oh, of course.

    But seeing as Gale has a medical condition himself (ankylosing spondylitis), he has the opportunity to illustrate just how this theory of his worked in his case. And he can show his proof that way.

    I figure if he's going to assert this horse manure for everyone else, he can lead the way by showing us all how it worked in his case.
  • Rosemary7391
    Rosemary7391 Posts: 232 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.

    Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?

    nope, sorry, not buying it.

    The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.

    Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.

    Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.

    Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?

    I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.

    There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.

    Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.

    And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.

    Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.

    Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.

    Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...

    Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?

    What country do you live in?

    I'm wondering what government wouldn't recommend getting a flu vaccine?

    Someone posted upthread, before someone hijacked it to evangelize about their latest miracle cure, that in their country the flu is not as much of a problem, and his doctor confirmed it is only recommended there for people over 65 or those who have a compromised immune system. I don't remember which country though.

    This is the case where I am in the UK. I've just checked and that also tallies with the WHO advice - it's recommended for certain groups at higher risk.

    I know it would do no harm (bar the cost/time, which might not be trivial given insurance wouldn't cover it) but I do think it's dangerous to start folk down the path of listening more to stuff on the internet than their own medical professionals. This is harmless - the next thing might not be! I'm quite concerned in general about a decrease in trust of experts amongst the general public. It's not possible for anyone to weigh up the risk/benefits of everything that they do, so it's vital that we have people to make recommendations for complicated things and that we trust them.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.

    Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?

    nope, sorry, not buying it.

    The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.

    Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.

    Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.

    Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?

    I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.

    There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.

    Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.

    And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.

    Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.

    Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.

    Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...

    Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?

    What country do you live in?

    I'm wondering what government wouldn't recommend getting a flu vaccine?

    Someone posted upthread, before someone hijacked it to evangelize about their latest miracle cure, that in their country the flu is not as much of a problem, and his doctor confirmed it is only recommended there for people over 65 or those who have a compromised immune system. I don't remember which country though.

    This is the case where I am in the UK. I've just checked and that also tallies with the WHO advice - it's recommended for certain groups at higher risk.

    I know it would do no harm (bar the cost/time, which might not be trivial given insurance wouldn't cover it) but I do think it's dangerous to start folk down the path of listening more to stuff on the internet than their own medical professionals. This is harmless - the next thing might not be! I'm quite concerned in general about a decrease in trust of experts amongst the general public. It's not possible for anyone to weigh up the risk/benefits of everything that they do, so it's vital that we have people to make recommendations for complicated things and that we trust them.


    Even if they are making recommendations for complicated things using what they learned 30 years ago only?
  • Rosemary7391
    Rosemary7391 Posts: 232 Member
    edited August 2017
    kimny72 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.

    Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?

    nope, sorry, not buying it.

    The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.

    Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.

    Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.

    Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?

    I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.

    There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.

    Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.

    And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.

    Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.

    Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.

    Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...

    Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?

    What country do you live in?

    I'm wondering what government wouldn't recommend getting a flu vaccine?

    Someone posted upthread, before someone hijacked it to evangelize about their latest miracle cure, that in their country the flu is not as much of a problem, and his doctor confirmed it is only recommended there for people over 65 or those who have a compromised immune system. I don't remember which country though.

    This is the case where I am in the UK. I've just checked and that also tallies with the WHO advice - it's recommended for certain groups at higher risk.

    I know it would do no harm (bar the cost/time, which might not be trivial given insurance wouldn't cover it) but I do think it's dangerous to start folk down the path of listening more to stuff on the internet than their own medical professionals. This is harmless - the next thing might not be! I'm quite concerned in general about a decrease in trust of experts amongst the general public. It's not possible for anyone to weigh up the risk/benefits of everything that they do, so it's vital that we have people to make recommendations for complicated things and that we trust them.

    As I mentioned before, the UK has the highest death rate from flu in Europe. It's not that flu is rare there, it's that your health service is not taking care of people. Death is often a good indication that medical professionals might be mistaken.

    No. A higher death rate from flu in the UK than Europe doesn't imply that the NHS "isn't taking care of people". It might, but that isn't enough evidence - it's more complicated than that. I can think of a few factors outside the control of the NHS that could be a reason - for instance, we might have a higher proportion of at risk population than other countries, our weather might be a factor in increasing complications. Factors that might or might not be the fault of the NHS could include the general health of our population (but that is also kind of the responsibility of the population too...) and poor uptake of the vaccine in at risk groups (I found a few figures around 40% to 70% for various at risk groups). Most likely it's a combination of all these things and a lot more! Even if the NHS is at fault, a focus on increasing vaccine uptake among the at risk groups might easily prove to be more beneficial than trying to vaccinate everyone.

    It isn't straightforward. This is why we need people who can deal with the complexities to spend a lot of time analysing data to figure out the best way forward.
  • Madwife2009
    Madwife2009 Posts: 1,369 Member

    don't spend time around people with impaired immune systems, children, or elderly if you haven't had flu (or especially vaccine) shots.

    The thing is, who can tell if someone has an impaired immune system? I have no idea if my neighbours or people in the street/shop/library have impaired immune systems. I'm immunosuppressed but you can't tell by looking at me. I don't go around waving a flag shouting out that my immune system is compromised. The only people who know this about me are my immediate family, my GP and my consultant. I don't go around telling people as it's none of their business and why would they want to know, anyway. The only people who care about it are my family and I.

    I can't say that I worry overly about exposure to bugs; if I'm going to catch something then I'm going to catch it. That's life, unfortunately. I don't avoid seeing people just in case, or even if they do have a virus. However, I do avoid visiting my parents if my children or I have a virus as they are old and they don't need an extra illness to cope with on top of what they are already dealing with.

    As far as the flu jab goes though, I have it, my three older children have it because of my immunosuppression (their choice, I hasten to add), my husband has a health condition that puts him at greater risk therefore he has the flu jab, and my youngest has it as she's in the age group that's currently regarded (in England) as being at higher risk. My parents have it because they are old, therefore at higher risk.
  • Macy9336
    Macy9336 Posts: 694 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.

    Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?

    nope, sorry, not buying it.

    The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.

    Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.

    Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.

    Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?

    I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.

    There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.

    Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.

    And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.

    Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.

    Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.

    Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...

    Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?

    What country do you live in?

    I'm wondering what government wouldn't recommend getting a flu vaccine?

    Someone posted upthread, before someone hijacked it to evangelize about their latest miracle cure, that in their country the flu is not as much of a problem, and his doctor confirmed it is only recommended there for people over 65 or those who have a compromised immune system. I don't remember which country though.

    This is the case where I am in the UK. I've just checked and that also tallies with the WHO advice - it's recommended for certain groups at higher risk.

    I know it would do no harm (bar the cost/time, which might not be trivial given insurance wouldn't cover it) but I do think it's dangerous to start folk down the path of listening more to stuff on the internet than their own medical professionals. This is harmless - the next thing might not be! I'm quite concerned in general about a decrease in trust of experts amongst the general public. It's not possible for anyone to weigh up the risk/benefits of everything that they do, so it's vital that we have people to make recommendations for complicated things and that we trust them.

    As I mentioned before, the UK has the highest death rate from flu in Europe. It's not that flu is rare there, it's that your health service is not taking care of people. Death is often a good indication that medical professionals might be mistaken.

    Actually, the NHS is not tracking deaths from flu. They are estimating them using same process as the CDC. This process is based on simply counting up extra deaths that happen during "flu season" without actually looking at death certificates or anything. There is NO actual tally of flu deaths. They don't even know if the flu vaccine has reduced deaths from flu in the UK or the US.
This discussion has been closed.