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
1…4647495152…63

Replies

  • johnwelk
    johnwelk Posts: 396 Member
    Options
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    Rosemary7391 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    TeacupsAndToning wrote: »
    Rosemary7391 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    Rosemary7391 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    Rosemary7391 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.

    Where in the world did you come up with this? What does "extra deaths" even mean? It makes no sense.
    Here is how both CDC and NHS estimate influenza mortality:
    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sources-of-uk-flu-data-influenza-surveillance-in-the-uk
    https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
    It's a little more involved than just counting extra deaths.

    Here's just one of many papers showing that influenza vaccine reduces mortality:
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/03/30/peds.2016-4244
  • fishgutzy
    fishgutzy Posts: 2,807 Member
    Options
    I don't get it and don't get the flu. My wife and kids get the flu shot and still get the flu.
    Last season they all got the shot. I didn't. I didn't get the flu. They did.
    Maybe my 2+ hour chlorine bath helps.
  • MellowGa
    MellowGa Posts: 1,305 Member
    Options
    I've gotten the flu shot every year for the last 15 years, I've never had any side effects or any issues. Anyone that does is fooling themselves, it's all mental. The flu shot works, I get it, My wife gets it, our three Children get it. Never had any issues or the flu.
  • ruqayyahsmum
    ruqayyahsmum Posts: 1,514 Member
    Options
    My kiddos have lung disease. In the first few years i nearly lost my daughter a couple times to flu. Watching doctors fight to intubate your baby is not fun

    18 months ago i watched a 6 foot doctor do chest compressions on my tiny baby while staff rushed to get equipment. Ill never be able to forget that

    We all get the vaccine yearly. The kids to try and prevent that happening again and as parenrs we get it 1. As an added layer of protection for the kids to stop us exposing them to the virus and 2. If we go down with it who will care for 2 additional needs kiddos
  • RedSierra
    RedSierra Posts: 253 Member
    edited September 2017
    Options
    jaci66 wrote: »
    Against the flu shot. Every time I got the shot, I got sick.

    I assume "got sick" means the flu.

    The shot doesn't give you the flu. The virus is dead. If you caught the flu on a year you got the shot, it was a different strain from the flu vaccine or you already had the virus and didn't have symptoms yet.

    https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/misconceptions.htm
    Can a flu shot give you the flu?

    No, a flu shot cannot cause flu illness. Flu vaccines given with a needle are currently made in two ways: the vaccine is made either with a) flu vaccine viruses that have been ‘inactivated’ and are therefore not infectious, or b) with no flu vaccine viruses at all (which is the case for recombinant influenza vaccine). The most common side effects from the influenza shot are soreness, redness, tenderness or swelling where the shot was given. Low-grade fever, headache and muscle aches also may occur.

  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    Ah, to live in an age where the great viral killers of the past are relegated to ancient history. Of course viruses can kill people. Viruses even kill healthy people.

    I think we are swiftly approaching a zero risk generation.

    But then are people losing the ability to assess relative risk?

    Probably the most hazardous thing people do daily is to drive to work. But how many people really think about what that means?
  • johnwelk
    johnwelk Posts: 396 Member
    Options
    saltlakecitywestsider wrote: »
    Most shots are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.

    Please, enlighten us, which ones are unnecessary and how are they dangerous? With the necessary citations to back up your nonsense of course. This should be good for a few laughs.
  • johnwelk
    johnwelk Posts: 396 Member
    edited September 2017
    Options
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    johnwelk wrote: »
    saltlakecitywestsider wrote: »
    Most shots are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.

    Please, enlighten us, which ones are unnecessary and how are they dangerous? With the necessary citations to back up your nonsense of course. This should be good for a few laughs.
    johnwelk wrote: »
    saltlakecitywestsider wrote: »
    Most shots are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.

    Please, enlighten us, which ones are unnecessary and how are they dangerous? With the necessary citations to back up your nonsense of course. This should be good for a few laughs.

    John we are still waiting on you to post any research by an independent research group that shows any validity to getting flu shots period.

    Gale, you are a joke. No one on the boards takes you seriously. I've posted many studies, you just don't like them because they don't agree with your ridiculous narrative.
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    johnwelk wrote: »
    saltlakecitywestsider wrote: »
    Most shots are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.

    Please, enlighten us, which ones are unnecessary and how are they dangerous? With the necessary citations to back up your nonsense of course. This should be good for a few laughs.
    johnwelk wrote: »
    saltlakecitywestsider wrote: »
    Most shots are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.

    Please, enlighten us, which ones are unnecessary and how are they dangerous? With the necessary citations to back up your nonsense of course. This should be good for a few laughs.

    John we are still waiting on you to post any research by an independent research group that shows any validity to getting flu shots period.
    Listen Gale,
    She made the claim, she needs to support her nonsense. Stay out of it, you amateur.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,160 Member
    Options
    medscape.com/viewarticle/855937

    "Summing Up the Data

    A 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis[21] examined the efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in patients with confirmed influenza illness. The authors confirmed that the original "recommendation to vaccinate the elderly was made without data for vaccine efficacy or effectiveness." The main message was that we need a better vaccine and better studies to demonstrate its effectiveness.

    Despite the lack of high-quality data supporting the value of the flu shot, widespread vaccination policy might still be reasonable if observational studies consistently showed a benefit. However, the observational studies cited by flu shot proponents are frequently flawed.[22,23,24,25,26,27,28] In many studies, relevant clinical outcomes are ignored in favor of immunogenicity (ie, the ability to elicit an antibody response). "Influenza-like illness" (ie, cold symptoms) is frequently measured instead of serious outcomes, such as pneumonia or death. When these more serious outcomes are examined, there is often a failure to control for healthy user bias—the propensity for healthier people to do such things as receive annual check-ups, eat healthier foods, and get the flu shot. So, although it's true that people who get flu shots live longer, it may have nothing to do with actually getting the flu shot.

    A 2005 study of a 33-season, national data set attempted to reconcile the reduced all-cause morbidity and mortality found in some observational studies of influenza vaccination with the fact that "national influenza mortality rates among seniors increased in the 1980s and 1990s as the senior vaccination coverage quadrupled."[29] In this study, the authors conclude that:
    "[Our] estimates, which provide the best available national estimates of the fraction of all winter deaths that are specifically attributable to influenza, show that the observational studies must overstate the mortality benefits of the vaccine...[even during two pandemic seasons] the estimated influenza-related mortality was probably very close to what would have occurred had no vaccine been available."

    The rationale for flu immunization as a national health priority is that influenza is a disease with serious complications, such as pneumonia, hospitalization, and death.[5,13,28] If the reason for influenza vaccination is that flu is such a serious disease, then the relevant outcomes are whether vaccination improves morbidity and mortality from flu. However, after decades of vaccine use, it is hard to detect any public health impact. This is in stark contrast to other routine vaccinations, such as polio and Haemophilus influenzae type b, where introduction of the vaccine led to obvious decline of the disease.

    We are pediatricians, and we believe in childhood immunizations. Many vaccines have provided immense public health value. We simply question whether the policy of routine influenza vaccination has outpaced the data supporting its use.

    Influenza vaccination now supersedes many other priorities of public health (such as obesity, illiteracy, and high school dropout), and we question whether so much time, effort, and money should be dedicated to flu vaccination while these other national healthcare priorities remain on the back burner."
This discussion has been closed.

Categories