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 ?
Options
Replies
-
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Yep, I get the flu shot every year now! The flu sucks!
Same. I've had it three times. (Twice when I was a kid). It was beyond awful.
I'm also immunosuppressed. My whole family gets the shot.2 -
I had the flu when I was in the 7th grade - ended up in the hospital for several days because I literally couldn't drink water w/o throwing up - so no, no muddling thru work or anything else.0
-
I have a good immune system and usually don't get the flu. But I did this year! Man do I wish I'd gotten the flu shot. The flu is terrible this year, I was sick for a week and a half.1
-
I always get one. I'm a scientist, and if someone I know gets the flu and they generally don't get vaccinated, I don't feel bad for them. No soup for you!! And if you die...3
-
I am 69 years old and have never had one. I am very healthy and rarely have any kind of sickness. I think that if you are not healthy you should get them. I also think that if you are healthy you will keep your immune system working better by not getting the shot.2
-
thegunsmith1 wrote: »I am 69 years old and have never had one. I am very healthy and rarely have any kind of sickness. I think that if you are not healthy you should get them. I also think that if you are healthy you will keep your immune system working better by not getting the shot.
Even if you are extremely healthy by all standards, the flu can and will knock you on your *kitten*. Even healthy, young people can get the flu and develop complications. e.g. get a super high fever/get dehydrated/get pneumonia and die.
A well functioning immune system will not always save you. Some people who are hospitalized because of the flu are also at risk of getting other infections because their immune system is already compromised.
Many people who die from influenza have a co-morbidity like COPD, Asthma, or something that already compromises the respitory system, but not always.
5 -
thegunsmith1 wrote: »I am 69 years old and have never had one. I am very healthy and rarely have any kind of sickness. I think that if you are not healthy you should get them. I also think that if you are healthy you will keep your immune system working better by not getting the shot.
That's not how immunity systems work. Healthy immune systems function by moderated exposure. Vaccinations provide this exposure to mimic the response of a live virus.
Not getting vaccinated makes about as much sense as not training for a marathon...and then trying to run a marathon.3 -
I have to agree with the 69 year old. Having got on top of my autoimmunity, I do not get ill nor do I intend to have injections full of preservatives, possibly mercury and other minerals which are antagonist to my system. The one time I had a flu jab because an elderly resident in a care facility where I worked was compromised, I've never been so very ill.2
-
I have to agree with the 69 year old. Having got on top of my autoimmunity, I do not get ill nor do I intend to have injections full of preservatives, possibly mercury and other minerals which are antagonist to my system. The one time I had a flu jab because an elderly resident in a care facility where I worked was compromised, I've never been so very ill.
Single dose flu shots don't contain preservatives, you can simply request one of those. They're not rare -- every year I get the flu vaccine and it's automatically been the single dose or pre-filled syringes that don't contain preservatives.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I have to agree with the 69 year old. Having got on top of my autoimmunity, I do not get ill nor do I intend to have injections full of preservatives, possibly mercury and other minerals which are antagonist to my system. The one time I had a flu jab because an elderly resident in a care facility where I worked was compromised, I've never been so very ill.
Single dose flu shots don't contain preservatives, you can simply request one of those. They're not rare -- every year I get the flu vaccine and it's automatically been the single dose or pre-filled syringes that don't contain preservatives.
Single-dose vaccines are standard where I live. Not that I have tried, but I'm not sure if I would be able to find anything but a single-dose format.
ETA: For influenza, that is. Some other vaccines are different.1 -
I was going to edit to add, there is no guarantee that the strains which vaccnes are available will be the ones to cause a pandemic at best they are the choice of a committee who guess. A single strain dose is even more of a lottery. Best part is you can still get the flu if the strain near you is not on the list................
Have you ever tried to get anything out of the ordinary from the NHS. One has more chance of getting on the first public moon trip for free. (Experience, private tests proved issues only to be dismissed out of hand).1 -
I was going to edit to add, there is no guarantee that the strains which vaccnes are available will be the ones to cause a pandemic at best they are the choice of a committee who guess. A single strain dose is even more of a lottery. Best part is you can still get the flu if the strain near you is not on the list................
Have you ever tried to get anything out of the ordinary from the NHS. One has more chance of getting on the first public moon trip for free. (Experience, private tests proved issues only to be dismissed out of hand).
I haven't seen a single-strain dose of influenza vaccine for awhile. Last year, I had a 3-strain dose (single-dose, as explained earlier) paid entirely by my employer. Yes, there is a risk that the strains used for the vaccine are not the most common strain. This year, they actually did pretty well in getting it right, but not as close in other years. In either case, I figure that it is better to be vaccinated against some strains than none.
If I come into contact with 5 strains of flu in a season, and have been vaccinated against 1 of those strains, then my immune system can more easily deal with that 1 strain and will have to work harder for the other 4. A 5th just adds to the risk. It would have been even better if all 3 of those 5 were the strains I had been vaccinated against, but even 1 is better than 0. It doesn't matter at that point that I was never exposed to live versions of 2 of the 3 strains included in the vaccine. Just taking the precaution to reduce risk is worthwhile to me.0 -
I was going to edit to add, there is no guarantee that the strains which vaccnes are available will be the ones to cause a pandemic at best they are the choice of a committee who guess. A single strain dose is even more of a lottery. Best part is you can still get the flu if the strain near you is not on the list................
Have you ever tried to get anything out of the ordinary from the NHS. One has more chance of getting on the first public moon trip for free. (Experience, private tests proved issues only to be dismissed out of hand).
The determination of which strains to include in the annual vaccine isn't a guess -- it's a prediction. Some years the prediction is better than others, but that doesn't mean that thought and analysis isn't going into it.
But it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to receive a single dose vaccine (at least not where I live). That's my whole point.1 -
The only single strain one I've ever had (I'm also in the UK)was a few years back,for swine flu. Others I've had have targeted more than one strain. And no,with the NHS there is no picking and choosing-you get what you're given.0
-
I think some here are confusing "single dose" and "single strain."2
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »I think some here are confusing "single dose" and "single strain."
Probably !1 -
That was about eight years ago. People who got vaccinated for regular seasonal flu and didn't also get vaccinated for the new strain of H1N1 were at an increased risk for H1N1 (but a greatly decreased risk for seasonal flu). But of course, you could reduce the risk of getting H1N1 by getting that vaccine as well. They started producing it late, so it wasn't available when it should have been.Except that it's actually questionable that flu shots reduce risk. During the swine flu epidemic, Canadian researchers found that people who'd had the annual flu shot were 1.5x MORE likely to get swine flu (and pas it on) than people who were unvaccinated.
But in any case, they've adjusted the vaccines since then, just like they do every year. And Canadian health authorities are now recommending the flu vaccine for people who can have it.
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/naci-ccni/flu-2016-grippe-eng.php#ii5
The bottom line of this argument is that because there's not 100% protection, there's no point to getting vaccinated. A properly formulated flu vaccine decreases the risk of getting the flu by 50 to 60%. Not perfect, but better than no protection at all. Like any precaution, it offers some protection against likely risks, but not all risks. But if you aren't vaccinated, you don't get that extra 50 to 60%. And even worse, you may become contagious yourself and pass it along to others whose immune systems aren't nearly as strong....there is no guarantee that the strains which vaccnes are available will be the ones to cause a pandemic at best they are the choice of a committee who guess. A single strain dose is even more of a lottery. Best part is you can still get the flu if the strain near you is not on the list.................
5 -
paperpudding wrote: »I don't think any flu vaccines are live vaccines - curious as to where poster lives that she believes this is so.
Poster is also wrong about live vaccines spreading the disease: if that were so, vaccines that are live vaccines would result in outbreaks of the disease. The main live vaccines used in western world are measles, mumps, rubella varicella ( chicken pox)
Use of these has not resulted in more outbreaks of the disease - would be pointless vaccinating if that were so.
No. You are wrong. This is the FDA's drug insert for one of the chicken pox vaccines. See section 5.4. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM142812.pdf
"Post-marketing experience suggests that transmission of vaccine virus may occur rarely between healthy vaccinees who develop a varicella-like rash and healthy susceptible contacts. Transmission of vaccine virus from a mother who did not develop a varicella-like rash to her newborn infant has been reported.
Due to the concern for transmission of vaccine virus, vaccine recipients should attempt to avoid whenever possible close association with susceptible high-risk individuals for up to six weeks following vaccination with VARIVAX."
I could go on and on but I will leave it at just this one. I challenge every person who is just fine with vaccines of any sort to get the ACTUAL vaccine insert from the manufacturer (not the "fact" sheet the doctor's office gives out). Take note of every vaccine (even "attenuated" which simply means "weakened" not "dead") that states there is at least some verifiable shedding of disease with every vaccine. Most of the inserts state to stay away from vulnerable populations for 4-6 weeks following vaccination. Guessing your doctor didn't tell you that when you went home to an immune compromised person ten minutes after getting any one of the vaccines available that is known to shed. But then, since the incidence is suppose to be "low" it really doesn't matter ---- until it's your immune compromised family member that gets it from you being vaxxed. 3 -
If you're going to vax, at least be informed. Don't just read one page, read the entire insert.......then if you choose to vax, you are at least fully informed to the best extent available.
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm2 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I don't think any flu vaccines are live vaccines - curious as to where poster lives that she believes this is so.
Poster is also wrong about live vaccines spreading the disease: if that were so, vaccines that are live vaccines would result in outbreaks of the disease. The main live vaccines used in western world are measles, mumps, rubella varicella ( chicken pox)
Use of these has not resulted in more outbreaks of the disease - would be pointless vaccinating if that were so.
No. You are wrong. This is the FDA's drug insert for one of the chicken pox vaccines. See section 5.4. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM142812.pdf
"Post-marketing experience suggests that transmission of vaccine virus may occur rarely between healthy vaccinees who develop a varicella-like rash and healthy susceptible contacts. Transmission of vaccine virus from a mother who did not develop a varicella-like rash to her newborn infant has been reported.
Due to the concern for transmission of vaccine virus, vaccine recipients should attempt to avoid whenever possible close association with susceptible high-risk individuals for up to six weeks following vaccination with VARIVAX."
I could go on and on but I will leave it at just this one. I challenge every person who is just fine with vaccines of any sort to get the ACTUAL vaccine insert from the manufacturer (not the "fact" sheet the doctor's office gives out). Take note of every vaccine (even "attenuated" which simply means "weakened" not "dead") that states there is at least some verifiable shedding of disease with every vaccine. Most of the inserts state to stay away from vulnerable populations for 4-6 weeks following vaccination. Guessing your doctor didn't tell you that when you went home to an immune compromised person ten minutes after getting any one of the vaccines available that is known to shed. But then, since the incidence is suppose to be "low" it really doesn't matter ---- until it's your immune compromised family member that gets it from you being vaxxed.
I work in the area of vaccination.
Yes there is an extremely low theoretical risk of transmisson of virus to severely immuno compromised people - that is not the same as live vaccines causing more outbreaks of the disease ,as was the original claim.
Severely immuno compromised people should not have live vaccines themselves - but their household contacts should.
The risk of the immuno compromised person catching the natural disease, especially if the household contacts are not vaccinated, is FAR more than the theoretical risk of vaccine shedding.
Vaccine shedding, on the extremely rare occasions it does occur, also results in a much milder case of the disease, than natural disease does.
Staying away from vulnerable persons if you get a rash from the vaccine (which most people dont) makes sense in terms of not visiting people in aged care homes, keeping away from chemotherapy patients etc - but doesnt make sense if you are going to have contact with the immuno suppressed person whether or not you are vaccinated - ie you live with them.
In that case the risk to the immuno suppressed person is greater if you are NOT vaccinated - for reasons explained above.
Please note - none of above applies to flu vaccine anyway - as it is not a live vaccine.
12
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions