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 ?
Replies
-
No but I prob should lol I just never think about it0
-
The flu jab is also questionable. I used to get it when it was said it provided 70-90% protection against the flu viruses in the vaccine and an hypothesised immunity boost against all other flu viruses due to positive interference. ( There are over 500,000 known flu viruses). But then swine flu happened and in 2010 Canada it was discovered that people who had had the annual flu jab were 1.5x MORE likely to catch swine flu than people who had not had the annual flu jab. Scientists then said this was evidence of negative interference, as in while the flu jab protects you from the three (or four in some jabs) viruses, it lowers your immunity to all other flu viruses...which would be at least 499,997. A few other studies have shown similar results...that regularly getting the flu jab could create a diminishing returns scenario. Made me go hmmmm. Now the flu jab doesn't seem like such a good deal after all. It's well known that the flu jab is an "educated guess" at what flu viruses may be circulating in a future season so it's not like the protection is definitely necessary. So why would I get higher immunity against a few viruses that may or may not come my way in return for lower immunity against hundreds of thousands of viruses that may or may not come my way? Are the odds in my favour?
Then it was recognised that the flu jab effectiveness against the viruses it immunises you against wasn't the estimated 70-90% but in practice was around 50% mostly attributed to viruses mutating in the time it took to make and administer the vaccine. Plus one small study showed that unvaccinated people caught the flu no more often than people who'd been vaccinated the prior two years. So now the immunity trade off is even more questionable as it seems a flu jab may not decrease the likelihood of getting sick.
But wait, surely flu deaths have decreased due to the vaccine? That alone would be enough to get me back in line for a flu jab. Let's get real, does it really matter if I catch the flu if I have a better chance to come out the other end? It's death that I want to avoid. Sad to say could not find any evidence that the flu vaccine has reduced the number of flu deaths...in fact found studies showing there has been little to no impact. It's because no one is actually tracking flu deaths, they are all estimated using questionable statistical methods. We do know that both vaccinated and unvaccinated people do die of the flu every year. But it would be nice to know if vaccinated people die at a lower rate than unvaccinated people...no study has been done. Too the introduction of powerful antiviral medications coincide with the increased availability of the flu jab...so even if the total number of deaths could be shown to have gone down there would need to be some scientific study linking it directly to the vaccine. I don't know why the governments are not tracking vaccinated vs unvaccinated rates of flu deaths...they should be. It's kind of an important piece of data to know if the vaccine actually provides a net immunity benefit or not. Maybe now it will be looked at given the recent scientific discoveries. So for now, I am off the flu jab wagon and will continue to monitor the science. Hopefully by the time I am elderly the flu jab will be improved (they are working on one that would provide lifelong immunity to all flu viruses) and/or there will be scientific data to show it is effective at providing a net immunity benefit.
Sources:
NCBI flu database contains over 500,000 different flu viruses. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/FLU/aboutdatabase.html
Vaccine effectiveness article. Mentions study where vaccinated and unvaccinated caught flu at same rate. http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2013/effectiveness-of-flu-vaccine-raises-more-red-flags.aspx
Article discussing new discoveries https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/28/2016-flu-season-shots-science/
Canadian studies showing increased risk of catching swine flu amongst annual flu vaccinated people http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000258
Study on vaccine impact on flu mortality http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/486407
Article about how flu deaths are estimated in U.K. Similar to US (as opposed to scientifically tracked)
http://straightstatistics.fullfact.org/article/flu-deaths-triumph-statistics-not-virology
Trends in flu mortality in US from 1900-2004. Discusses how no evidence flu deaths decreased due to the vaccine. Also has good discussion on how flu deaths are estimated not tracked and the problems with the estimating methods. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374803/?report=reader
5 -
comptonelizabeth 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.
Agreed. Though there have been isolated cases in the UK of parents contracting polio after their babies have been vaccinated- apparently from changing nappies. Which may or may not be down to adults not keeping up with their own boosters (and not washing their hands after changing their babies !)
This was only the case for oral vaccines( shed through faecal route hence nappy changing risk) and parents/grandparents who were not themselves vaccinated.
It is not a risk with injectable polio vaccine.
Australia now uses only injectable polio vaccine - I believe some Asian countries still use oral polio vaccine.
0 -
paperpudding wrote: »comptonelizabeth 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.
Agreed. Though there have been isolated cases in the UK of parents contracting polio after their babies have been vaccinated- apparently from changing nappies. Which may or may not be down to adults not keeping up with their own boosters (and not washing their hands after changing their babies !)
This was only the case for oral vaccines( shed through faecal route hence nappy changing risk) and parents/grandparents who were not themselves vaccinated.
It is not a risk with injectable polio vaccine.
Australia now uses only injectable polio vaccine - I believe some Asian countries still use oral polio vaccine.
Yeah,that's what I remember. Not sure how the vaccine is given now in the uk - when my kids were babies it was given as drops on a sugar cube but most probably it's given by injection now. In any event I think it was only a couple of isolated cases and the serious risks posed by polio itself far outweigh other considerations IMO0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »kassierodriguez1 wrote: »Against. I have never gotten them. I have never had any shots. I have been around people with the flu. And have yet to get it. I'm very healthy
200 dead in Washington
47 dead in Idaho
32 dead in North Carolina
The list goes on and on.
But hey, at least you're healthy, even though you've exposed yourself tot he flu and are no doubt a transmission vector. You sure showed those ridiculous doctors how dumb they are!
@xmicahx your first link drives home how the flu risks mainly are for those near death before getting the flu and is the group the shots do not seem to work very well.
"The vast majority of this season’s deaths involved seniors with underlying conditions such as heart disease, respiratory disease and diabetes. Snohomish County reported the median age for its 36 flu-related deaths was 82 years old; all had underlying conditions, according to the Snohomish Health District."
It seems eating and moving in ways that prevent heart disease, respiratory disease and diabetes is perhaps the best way to prevent death while having the flu.
I do wish there was valid unbiased medical data on this subject but until that day comes this will be more of an emotional issue. Everyone who is free to make their own decision should do so.
If the vaccine is less effective for those at a higher risk of death, there is an even stronger moral case to be made that those of us at lower risk should get vaccinated. If it is more effective for us, we can help reduce transmission to those for whom the vaccine is less effective and face a higher risk of death or serious complications.
Why wouldn't I want to help with that?
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/11/27/a-shot-never-worth-taking-the-flu-vaccine-by-kelly-brogan-md/
Most everyone wants to help with that.
Sadly there is not independently verifiable info that vaccinations like the flu shots do more good than harm and that is why we are posting emotional thoughts because there is not solid medical info as to the net good/harm of getting flu shots.
As one with an earned terminal degree in healthcare I have studied this subject post graduate for the past 20 years because our kids were born in 1997. I know and appreciate Epidemiology and the many factors of Public Health.
How many of our autoimmune diseases of today may be related to past shots when have had since childhood?
As long as those in healthcare question efficacy of things like the flu shots the masses will have questions too.
There is no one posting in this tread that can support getting or NOT getting the flu shot with concrete medical facts today.
This tread and the next one like it will be based on people's belief systems and not concrete medical data because the concrete medical data is not Googleable. Yes there are bits and pieces of pro and con data that we then use use to support our belief systems.
The idea that autoimmune diseases may be linked to "past shots" seems like pure speculation. Is there any evidence to suggest this is the case?
I've studied up a lot on auto-immune disorders because I have them (Type 1 diabetes and Hashimoto's). There are 2 things needed for most of these auto-immune diseases:
1. DNA. Specifically, people like me have problematic versions of HLA genes (passed through chromosome 6).
2. Environmental trigger. This is why not everybody in my family has type 1 diabetes despite also having the same DNA problem. Something needs to trigger the auto-immune response. In the case of type 1 diabetes, only about 5% of us with the DNA are triggered. This is why I don't know anybody else in my blood line with type 1... I have to go up and down the family tree for so many generations that the nearest relative is likely that kid who got sick and died 300 years ago, blamed on either a flu or for an unidentified illness. The fact that some siblings both were triggered while other entire families carry the genes with nobody getting triggered is likely bad luck. For the population as a whole, it is about 5% of those who have the genes mentioned in #1.
The environmental trigger can vary widely, but is usually something that your immune system SHOULD attack. Sometimes you might hear an uninformed type 1 exclaim that the flu caused them to get diabetes, or chicken pox caused them to get diabetes... which may be partially true if the flu or chicken pox was the trigger in their individual circumstance.
There might be an argument to be made that the risk of a flu vaccine triggering another auto-immune disease in someone with the problem HLA genes is so much greater than the risk of getting the flu (which could also trigger the auto-immune response). I don't support that viewpoint, but that doesn't make the point invalid. This is a gray area where I'm not sure anybody is absolutely right or wrong on either side.
Thank you for this context.1 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »
Yeah,that's what I remember. Not sure how the vaccine is given now in the uk - when my kids were babies it was given as drops on a sugar cube but most probably it's given by injection now. In any event I think it was only a couple of isolated cases and the serious risks posed by polio itself far outweigh other considerations IMO
Its by injection now - each child has five doses at ages 8/12/16 weeks (part of a 5-in-1 injection), 3 years and 4 months (part of a 4-in-1 booster) and 14 years (3-in-1 booster).
I remember having the vaccine as a teenager on a lump of sugar (yuck). When my oldest (now 17) was a baby she just had the vaccine squirted in her mouth and we were warned to be careful when changing her nappies afterwards. My other children (ages 13, 12 and 4) had injections.
1 -
The flu jab is also questionable. I used to get it when it was said it provided 70-90% protection against the flu viruses in the vaccine and an hypothesised immunity boost against all other flu viruses due to positive interference. ( There are over 500,000 known flu viruses). But then swine flu happened and in 2010 Canada it was discovered that people who had had the annual flu jab were 1.5x MORE likely to catch swine flu than people who had not had the annual flu jab. Scientists then said this was evidence of negative interference, as in while the flu jab protects you from the three (or four in some jabs) viruses, it lowers your immunity to all other flu viruses...which would be at least 499,997. A few other studies have shown similar results...that regularly getting the flu jab could create a diminishing returns scenario. Made me go hmmmm. Now the flu jab doesn't seem like such a good deal after all. It's well known that the flu jab is an "educated guess" at what flu viruses may be circulating in a future season so it's not like the protection is definitely necessary. So why would I get higher immunity against a few viruses that may or may not come my way in return for lower immunity against hundreds of thousands of viruses that may or may not come my way? Are the odds in my favour?
Then it was recognised that the flu jab effectiveness against the viruses it immunises you against wasn't the estimated 70-90% but in practice was around 50% mostly attributed to viruses mutating in the time it took to make and administer the vaccine. Plus one small study showed that unvaccinated people caught the flu no more often than people who'd been vaccinated the prior two years. So now the immunity trade off is even more questionable as it seems a flu jab may not decrease the likelihood of getting sick.
But wait, surely flu deaths have decreased due to the vaccine? That alone would be enough to get me back in line for a flu jab. Let's get real, does it really matter if I catch the flu if I have a better chance to come out the other end? It's death that I want to avoid. Sad to say could not find any evidence that the flu vaccine has reduced the number of flu deaths...in fact found studies showing there has been little to no impact. It's because no one is actually tracking flu deaths, they are all estimated using questionable statistical methods. We do know that both vaccinated and unvaccinated people do die of the flu every year. But it would be nice to know if vaccinated people die at a lower rate than unvaccinated people...no study has been done. Too the introduction of powerful antiviral medications coincide with the increased availability of the flu jab...so even if the total number of deaths could be shown to have gone down there would need to be some scientific study linking it directly to the vaccine. I don't know why the governments are not tracking vaccinated vs unvaccinated rates of flu deaths...they should be. It's kind of an important piece of data to know if the vaccine actually provides a net immunity benefit or not. Maybe now it will be looked at given the recent scientific discoveries. So for now, I am off the flu jab wagon and will continue to monitor the science. Hopefully by the time I am elderly the flu jab will be improved (they are working on one that would provide lifelong immunity to all flu viruses) and/or there will be scientific data to show it is effective at providing a net immunity benefit.
Sources:
NCBI flu database contains over 500,000 different flu viruses. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/FLU/aboutdatabase.html
Vaccine effectiveness article. Mentions study where vaccinated and unvaccinated caught flu at same rate. http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2013/effectiveness-of-flu-vaccine-raises-more-red-flags.aspx
Article discussing new discoveries https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/28/2016-flu-season-shots-science/
Canadian studies showing increased risk of catching swine flu amongst annual flu vaccinated people http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000258
Study on vaccine impact on flu mortality http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/486407
Article about how flu deaths are estimated in U.K. Similar to US (as opposed to scientifically tracked)
http://straightstatistics.fullfact.org/article/flu-deaths-triumph-statistics-not-virology
Trends in flu mortality in US from 1900-2004. Discusses how no evidence flu deaths decreased due to the vaccine. Also has good discussion on how flu deaths are estimated not tracked and the problems with the estimating methods. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374803/?report=reader
Just when I was convinced that getting flu shots was the right thing to do! Anyone of our many knowledgeable people want to weigh in on the argument Macy has put together here?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
My family gets the flu shot, and we do so for many, many reasons. First, an extended family member has an agressive form of cancer, and in order to help him do the best he can with their treatment, we are doing everything we can to not bring illness into their house. Second, my nephew on the other side of the family has a seizure disorder and cannot be vaccinated, so we help protect him and keep him safe. Third, I found out a few years ago that I am allergic to the two main drugs given to treat pneumonia. I'm not allergic to anything else except those two drugs. I get the flu shot to help lower my chances of developing a secondary pneumonia infection from the flu.
We have never had an adverse reaction to the flu shots. Currently the flu type A is running rampant through our community. It seems that the main people who are getting it and really getting knocked out with it are the anti-vaxers. Those who've gotten the flu shots seem to either recover very quickly or have not contracted it in the first place.4 -
This content has been removed.
-
goldthistime wrote: »The flu jab is also questionable. I used to get it when it was said it provided 70-90% protection against the flu viruses in the vaccine and an hypothesised immunity boost against all other flu viruses due to positive interference. ( There are over 500,000 known flu viruses). But then swine flu happened and in 2010 Canada it was discovered that people who had had the annual flu jab were 1.5x MORE likely to catch swine flu than people who had not had the annual flu jab. Scientists then said this was evidence of negative interference, as in while the flu jab protects you from the three (or four in some jabs) viruses, it lowers your immunity to all other flu viruses...which would be at least 499,997. A few other studies have shown similar results...that regularly getting the flu jab could create a diminishing returns scenario. Made me go hmmmm. Now the flu jab doesn't seem like such a good deal after all. It's well known that the flu jab is an "educated guess" at what flu viruses may be circulating in a future season so it's not like the protection is definitely necessary. So why would I get higher immunity against a few viruses that may or may not come my way in return for lower immunity against hundreds of thousands of viruses that may or may not come my way? Are the odds in my favour?
Then it was recognised that the flu jab effectiveness against the viruses it immunises you against wasn't the estimated 70-90% but in practice was around 50% mostly attributed to viruses mutating in the time it took to make and administer the vaccine. Plus one small study showed that unvaccinated people caught the flu no more often than people who'd been vaccinated the prior two years. So now the immunity trade off is even more questionable as it seems a flu jab may not decrease the likelihood of getting sick.
But wait, surely flu deaths have decreased due to the vaccine? That alone would be enough to get me back in line for a flu jab. Let's get real, does it really matter if I catch the flu if I have a better chance to come out the other end? It's death that I want to avoid. Sad to say could not find any evidence that the flu vaccine has reduced the number of flu deaths...in fact found studies showing there has been little to no impact. It's because no one is actually tracking flu deaths, they are all estimated using questionable statistical methods. We do know that both vaccinated and unvaccinated people do die of the flu every year. But it would be nice to know if vaccinated people die at a lower rate than unvaccinated people...no study has been done. Too the introduction of powerful antiviral medications coincide with the increased availability of the flu jab...so even if the total number of deaths could be shown to have gone down there would need to be some scientific study linking it directly to the vaccine. I don't know why the governments are not tracking vaccinated vs unvaccinated rates of flu deaths...they should be. It's kind of an important piece of data to know if the vaccine actually provides a net immunity benefit or not. Maybe now it will be looked at given the recent scientific discoveries. So for now, I am off the flu jab wagon and will continue to monitor the science. Hopefully by the time I am elderly the flu jab will be improved (they are working on one that would provide lifelong immunity to all flu viruses) and/or there will be scientific data to show it is effective at providing a net immunity benefit.
Sources:
NCBI flu database contains over 500,000 different flu viruses. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/FLU/aboutdatabase.html
Vaccine effectiveness article. Mentions study where vaccinated and unvaccinated caught flu at same rate. http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2013/effectiveness-of-flu-vaccine-raises-more-red-flags.aspx
Article discussing new discoveries https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/28/2016-flu-season-shots-science/
Canadian studies showing increased risk of catching swine flu amongst annual flu vaccinated people http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000258
Study on vaccine impact on flu mortality http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/486407
Article about how flu deaths are estimated in U.K. Similar to US (as opposed to scientifically tracked)
http://straightstatistics.fullfact.org/article/flu-deaths-triumph-statistics-not-virology
Trends in flu mortality in US from 1900-2004. Discusses how no evidence flu deaths decreased due to the vaccine. Also has good discussion on how flu deaths are estimated not tracked and the problems with the estimating methods. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374803/?report=reader
Just when I was convinced that getting flu shots was the right thing to do! Anyone of our many knowledgeable people want to weigh in on the argument Macy has put together here?
@goldthistime medically there just is not evidence supporting flu shots like some other vaccinations.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »The flu jab is also questionable. I used to get it when it was said it provided 70-90% protection against the flu viruses in the vaccine and an hypothesised immunity boost against all other flu viruses due to positive interference. ( There are over 500,000 known flu viruses). But then swine flu happened and in 2010 Canada it was discovered that people who had had the annual flu jab were 1.5x MORE likely to catch swine flu than people who had not had the annual flu jab. Scientists then said this was evidence of negative interference, as in while the flu jab protects you from the three (or four in some jabs) viruses, it lowers your immunity to all other flu viruses...which would be at least 499,997. A few other studies have shown similar results...that regularly getting the flu jab could create a diminishing returns scenario. Made me go hmmmm. Now the flu jab doesn't seem like such a good deal after all. It's well known that the flu jab is an "educated guess" at what flu viruses may be circulating in a future season so it's not like the protection is definitely necessary. So why would I get higher immunity against a few viruses that may or may not come my way in return for lower immunity against hundreds of thousands of viruses that may or may not come my way? Are the odds in my favour?
Then it was recognised that the flu jab effectiveness against the viruses it immunises you against wasn't the estimated 70-90% but in practice was around 50% mostly attributed to viruses mutating in the time it took to make and administer the vaccine. Plus one small study showed that unvaccinated people caught the flu no more often than people who'd been vaccinated the prior two years. So now the immunity trade off is even more questionable as it seems a flu jab may not decrease the likelihood of getting sick.
But wait, surely flu deaths have decreased due to the vaccine? That alone would be enough to get me back in line for a flu jab. Let's get real, does it really matter if I catch the flu if I have a better chance to come out the other end? It's death that I want to avoid. Sad to say could not find any evidence that the flu vaccine has reduced the number of flu deaths...in fact found studies showing there has been little to no impact. It's because no one is actually tracking flu deaths, they are all estimated using questionable statistical methods. We do know that both vaccinated and unvaccinated people do die of the flu every year. But it would be nice to know if vaccinated people die at a lower rate than unvaccinated people...no study has been done. Too the introduction of powerful antiviral medications coincide with the increased availability of the flu jab...so even if the total number of deaths could be shown to have gone down there would need to be some scientific study linking it directly to the vaccine. I don't know why the governments are not tracking vaccinated vs unvaccinated rates of flu deaths...they should be. It's kind of an important piece of data to know if the vaccine actually provides a net immunity benefit or not. Maybe now it will be looked at given the recent scientific discoveries. So for now, I am off the flu jab wagon and will continue to monitor the science. Hopefully by the time I am elderly the flu jab will be improved (they are working on one that would provide lifelong immunity to all flu viruses) and/or there will be scientific data to show it is effective at providing a net immunity benefit.
Sources:
NCBI flu database contains over 500,000 different flu viruses. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/FLU/aboutdatabase.html
Vaccine effectiveness article. Mentions study where vaccinated and unvaccinated caught flu at same rate. http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2013/effectiveness-of-flu-vaccine-raises-more-red-flags.aspx
Article discussing new discoveries https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/28/2016-flu-season-shots-science/
Canadian studies showing increased risk of catching swine flu amongst annual flu vaccinated people http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000258
Study on vaccine impact on flu mortality http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/486407
Article about how flu deaths are estimated in U.K. Similar to US (as opposed to scientifically tracked)
http://straightstatistics.fullfact.org/article/flu-deaths-triumph-statistics-not-virology
Trends in flu mortality in US from 1900-2004. Discusses how no evidence flu deaths decreased due to the vaccine. Also has good discussion on how flu deaths are estimated not tracked and the problems with the estimating methods. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374803/?report=reader
Just when I was convinced that getting flu shots was the right thing to do! Anyone of our many knowledgeable people want to weigh in on the argument Macy has put together here?
Well, I can't claim to be knowledgeable about it but personally I disagree that death is the only thing to avoid!
2 -
goldthistime wrote: »Just when I was convinced that getting flu shots was the right thing to do! Anyone of our many knowledgeable people want to weigh in on the argument Macy has put together here?
I've never gotten the Flu vaccine for pretty much all the reasons Macy stated as well. I'm not an anti-vaxer, nor am I even against the flu vaccine per say. I just don't see any need for me to get it. I have always had a very healthy and robust immune system and prefer not to tamper with something I know already works well for me to avoid an illness that has never been an issue for me. I rarely get sick as it is (aside from my yearly cold in the fall) and when I do, I tend to recover very quickly. It's the same with my teenage children. While they did get the flu shot when it first came out while they were in elementary school, I stopped when they hit Highschool. I just don't see that the benefit for healthy adults outweighs the negatives that statics shows our societies anti-illness movement seems to be causing.
That said, I do fully support the use of flu vaccines for those who need immunity assistance. Medicine is a wonderful thing, but our abuse of it it a bit nauseating.
2 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »comptonelizabeth wrote: »While I am supposed to get the flu vaccine every year due to being asthmatic and suffering from chronic bronchitis/heavily scarred lungs, I do not get it. Problem is that live virus vaccines spread the very diseases they are supposed to protect against...so needlessly vaccinating causes more outbreaks of the disease. This is due to viral shedding which makes a recently vaccinated person a carrier and spreader of the disease for weeks to months after being vaccinated. I don't want to make vulnerable people sick just to get a vaccine that I don't really need...flu will not kill me in my current state of health. My chronic conditions do mean that flu could kill me when I get elderly so I will probably take it then and ensure I quarantine myself so I don't get anyone around me sick. https://www.westonaprice.org/press/studies-show-that-vaccinated-individuals-spread-disease/
The one I get (in the uk) isn't a live vaccine
Yeah, the Australian one isn't a live vaccine, either.
Neither is the US one.3 -
-
The flu pandemic of 1918-19 killed around 20 to 40 million people, more than World War I. Today influenza doesn't kill that many, but it's still a big killer: tens of thousands in the US and hundreds of thousands around the world each year. Many times that number become seriously ill. And many more are laid out for a couple of weeks with a basic case of the flu. When that many people get sick, it eats up health care resources and causes a drop in productivity. Not to mention, it's just a miserable illness to suffer through.
Flu vaccines not guaranteed to work, but they do reduce the risk and for most people there's no compelling reason not to. Some people can't get the shot, of course, even if they'd like to, because of their age or health. By getting a flu shot, I can help avoid becoming a carrier for the disease and spreading it to them. If I can help save someone's life or prevent suffering with very little risk or trouble to myself, I think I ought to go ahead and do it. So that's why I get flu shots every year.14 -
NARCISSISTIC_PUP wrote: »Think people use 'flu' too much, over exaggerating common colds
No need for flu jabs, suck it up
Too many hypochondriacs kicking around
In recent years, an estimated 12,000-56,000 people have died each year in the US of influenza. Or do you also chalk that up to hypochondria?5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NARCISSISTIC_PUP wrote: »Think people use 'flu' too much, over exaggerating common colds
No need for flu jabs, suck it up
Too many hypochondriacs kicking around
In recent years, an estimated 12,000-56,000 people have died each year in the US of influenza. Or do you also chalk that up to hypochondria?
The problem is no one is tracking deaths from the flu...at all. So we don't know how many people do or don't die from it much less whthervflu shots have had any impact.1 -
The flu pandemic of 1918-19 killed around 20 to 40 million people, more than World War I. Today influenza doesn't kill that many, but it's still a big killer: tens of thousands in the US and hundreds of thousands around the world each year. Many times that number become seriously ill. And many more are laid out for a couple of weeks with a basic case of the flu. When that many people get sick, it eats up health care resources and causes a drop in productivity. Not to mention, it's just a miserable illness to suffer through.
Flu vaccines not guaranteed to work, but they do reduce the risk and for most people there's no compelling reason not to. Some people can't get the shot, of course, even if they'd like to, because of their age or health. By getting a flu shot, I can help avoid becoming a carrier for the disease and spreading it to them. If I can help save someone's life or prevent suffering with very little risk or trouble to myself, I think I ought to go ahead and do it. So that's why I get flu shots every year.
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.
2 -
This year, they actually did really well with predicting the flu strain that would be most common. Still, I've heard that patients who are deficient in vitamin D don't see as much benefit from flu vaccines and are more susceptible with or without a vaccine. I haven't looked further into this, but flu season happens to be when there is less sunlight and fewer people are outside even when there is sunlight - a major source of vitamin D. I wonder if this is a coincidence? A flu vaccine is cheaper than vitamin D supplements over several months, especially since the vaccine is free to me. Still, I wonder whether a vitamin D supplement could help some of those who get the vaccine and yet still get the flu (whether the same or different strain).0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »NARCISSISTIC_PUP wrote: »Think people use 'flu' too much, over exaggerating common colds
No need for flu jabs, suck it up
Too many hypochondriacs kicking around
In recent years, an estimated 12,000-56,000 people have died each year in the US of influenza. Or do you also chalk that up to hypochondria?
The problem is no one is tracking deaths from the flu...at all. So we don't know how many people do or don't die from it much less whthervflu shots have had any impact.
The CDC does an estimate each year: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
Is your argument that since it's only an estimate nobody has actually died? Because I was responding to someone who said that people should "suck it up" and that it was an issue of hypochondria.
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »NARCISSISTIC_PUP wrote: »Think people use 'flu' too much, over exaggerating common colds
No need for flu jabs, suck it up
Too many hypochondriacs kicking around
In recent years, an estimated 12,000-56,000 people have died each year in the US of influenza. Or do you also chalk that up to hypochondria?
The problem is no one is tracking deaths from the flu...at all. So we don't know how many people do or don't die from it much less whthervflu shots have had any impact.
The CDC does an estimate each year: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
Is your argument that since it's only an estimate nobody has actually died? Because I was responding to someone who said that people should "suck it up" and that it was an issue of hypochondria.
No my argument is because no one is tracking flu cases or deaths, we have no idea whether the flu shot is effective or not. I am aware the CDC estimates deaths but the estimating process they use is pretty rubbish. It's the same here in the UK.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »NARCISSISTIC_PUP wrote: »Think people use 'flu' too much, over exaggerating common colds
No need for flu jabs, suck it up
Too many hypochondriacs kicking around
In recent years, an estimated 12,000-56,000 people have died each year in the US of influenza. Or do you also chalk that up to hypochondria?
The problem is no one is tracking deaths from the flu...at all. So we don't know how many people do or don't die from it much less whthervflu shots have had any impact.
The CDC does an estimate each year: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
Is your argument that since it's only an estimate nobody has actually died? Because I was responding to someone who said that people should "suck it up" and that it was an issue of hypochondria.
No my argument is because no one is tracking flu cases or deaths, we have no idea whether the flu shot is effective or not. I am aware the CDC estimates deaths but the estimating process they use is pretty rubbish. It's the same here in the UK.
But I was responding to someone who said people should just "suck it up" and that is was an issue of hypochondria. That is what I was responding to -- not making a case that the flu vaccine is effective (I think the case can be made, it just wasn't what I was saying in that post).
Do you agree with that statement about "sucking it up"? If not, I'm not sure what you're wanting to discuss. Presumably we can agree that even if the CDC estimate is inaccurate, people still die due to the flu and "sucking it up" isn't an option for everyone.1 -
Hmm I'm not sure either now. Because I do agree that the suck it up, hypochondriac thing is incorrect.0
-
I suspect anyone who thinks people with flu are hypochondriacs who should suck it up,has probably never had real flu.
I agree that there are some who have maybe a fluey cold who claim to have flu. Real flu,however,is pretty nasty even for healthy people.6 -
When you get the flu, there is no denying it or sucking it up.5
-
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »When you get the flu, there is no denying it or sucking it up.
Does the actual flu put one in bed or can you still muddle through working each day?0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »When you get the flu, there is no denying it or sucking it up.
Does the actual flu put one in bed or can you still muddle through working each day?
There is no muddling through the work day with the flu, the flu hits you fast and hard! It's like getting hit by a Mack truck. The last time I had the flu, my doc asked me why didn't I come in earlier to see her but I was so completely out of it.1 -
My wife get a flu shot every year for the 25% of it that's worth having.0
-
Yep, I get the flu shot every year now! The flu sucks!0
https://youtu.be/kDV8hUurcio
This discussion has been closed.
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