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 ?

1545557596063

Replies

  • comptonelizabeth
    comptonelizabeth Posts: 1,701 Member
    bachster1 wrote: »
    Wanna see what other people think about this topic.
    I for one am very neutral on it. Working in Healthcare I see if fit. However I also see negative effects of it.

    What's your thoughts?

    I'm for, but not for me. I don't get sick, really at all, so I don't unless forced (Vet/USN medical)...BUT if you are predisposed to ailments, allergies or otherwise immune suppressed: YES (& I have lived all over the world/ multiple climates; native Great Laker) I understand the push for all, but we still don't understand the viruses quite that well. I leave my nasal shot for the person who needs it more. It's the only time I "get sick", so take it!

    If you've read through this thread you'll have seen several of us pointing out that the vaccine is *less effective * for people who are immunosuporessed (of which I am one) What helps to protect us is healthy people minimising/reducing the risk of infection, by (amongst other things ) getting vaccinated
  • Rosemary7391
    Rosemary7391 Posts: 232 Member
    I wonder, as this thread is still rambling on on this particular website... what would the effect on public health be if all the effort expended on increasing flu vaccine uptake was put into preventing obesity?

    What would it mean to focus that effort (which I think means money) on preventing obesity?

    People become obese when they eat too many calories for a prolonged period. Everybody knows eating less and moving more is there way to prevent obesity. But most people don't want to do that. There isn't a shot to prevent obesity like there is with the flu. Are we going to put signs up saying "don't get fat?" Obesity has been going on for a while and we've been trying to stem it but not a lot of luck so far, what is it about not having flu shots that would suddenly make obesity prevention a success?

    I kinda meant the advertising bit. Obviously stopping flu shots for everyone would be a bad idea and that isn't what I meant. But if, say, 90%* of people are gonna get them anyway then the advertising money can probably be used more usefully to advertise or fund weight loss support for instance, instead of chasing a 95%* flu shot rate.

    *These numbers are probably wrong; but there will be a pair of numbers for which this is true!

    I don't know the specifics about how to prevent obesity in the general population... but that's another interesting question to ponder and probably a precursor to answering my first one, since we'd have to know how effective the alternative might be to make a proper comparison.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    The statistics are pretty conclusive about the costs of vaccine refusal.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3720046/
  • oharras
    oharras Posts: 47 Member
    Worked in NIH Clinical Center for years and exposed to patients, flu shot required. After retirement and having a c immune system weakness, absolutely get flu shots.
  • Rosemary7391
    Rosemary7391 Posts: 232 Member
    jgnatca wrote: »
    The statistics are pretty conclusive about the costs of vaccine refusal.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3720046/

    That link doesn't have much to do with the flu. No one is trying to eradicate flu. If they were I'd be all for it since it's a one off cost that would prevail throughout and beyond our lifetime. Flu shots are a yearly thing, quite a different proposal. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just a different one that needs to be evaluated differently to things like smallpox or polio.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    edited November 2017
    The link I provided talked about how resistance arises that results in lower compliance rates. Ironically vaccination compliance goes down as incidence of the disease goes down. People do not see the benefits as easily. The one eradication campaign that worked was for smallpox, because we managed to wipe it out before vaccine resistance had a chance to develop.

    This applies very well to the whole problem of flu vaccine compliance. People may not have personal experience of family members who have died from the flu. As the danger recedes, so does the compliance.

    I do happen to have a close family member who could die from a single exposure to the flu, and has been hospitalized several times to recover from the flu. You betcha I'm getting vaccinated before I visit my dad.

    The article goes on to talk about where to spend the efforts to improve compliance, which is where you were questioning where to invest funding, @Rosemary7391 . Vaccination is kind of an obvious win, because compliance will get us the win.

    How to overcome obesity through education and advertising, however, is less clear cut. Would converting an entire nation to be sugar-averse, for instance, result in lower obesity rates? I'm curious to see how Brazil's food guide will affect that nation's obesity rates (since it's approach is a radical departure, say, from the US, Australia, Canada, and the UK).

    [Edited to correct, dad could die from a single exposure to the flu, not the flu vaccine. Duh]
  • Rosemary7391
    Rosemary7391 Posts: 232 Member
    @jgnatca, I thought that article was talking more about attempts to eradicate diseases - which obviously does need a very high level of compliance, but also brings great benefits. It's not so obvious to me that flu is in the same category. You'd need the high level of compliance every year, at the right time of year, and you'll still have folks catching the flu anyway because the thing mutates so fast they can't vaccinate against every strain. Those sorts of things all work against compliance with the flu vaccine specifically; it's even more of an uphill struggle than the standard childhood vaccines. I'm just not sure it's worth really fighting that uphill battle every single year; you come back to the same place again next year.

    FWIW I totally agree you should get vaccinated before you see your dad. If I had contact with those sorts of vunerable people I'd go out of my way to get the flu shot too. Ditto if it was suggested I get it by my doctor (it's only suggested for vunerable groups in the UK). I'm just wondering what the cut off is for making it worthwhile to really push vaccinating the population as a whole as opposed to something else. Obesity was just a MFP relevant suggestion. You could even compare it to pushing vaccinating for something else, like the newish HPV vaccine. Or a "let's eradicate X in our country" campaign. 'Twould be an interesting policy experiment for one year - and if it really went badly, you can swiftly revert to the previous level of flu vaccine advertising the next year, or alternate between flu and something else.

    PS You say experience of people dying from the flu - I only know one person who has even had it, and it wasn't the seasonal flu. If that's what you're fighting against you really are onto a losing battle with the average person. I guess the situation is different where you are and most people will know plenty who have had the flu, even if they didn't die/need hospitalization.

    I like the look of Brazil's guidelines! I think if they're followed they'll bring more benefits than just lower rates of obesity; there will be social benefits to people taking a bit of time out and eating together too. Not a fan of the ban on cake though (but I love baking and decorating cakes, so there's my bias! And no, it isn't what made me fat.).
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    jgnatca wrote: »
    The statistics are pretty conclusive about the costs of vaccine refusal.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3720046/

    That link doesn't have much to do with the flu. No one is trying to eradicate flu. If they were I'd be all for it since it's a one off cost that would prevail throughout and beyond our lifetime. Flu shots are a yearly thing, quite a different proposal. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just a different one that needs to be evaluated differently to things like smallpox or polio.

    Uh just because we haven't been successful at eradication does not mean it isn't being tried. Truly eradicating a disease is a monumental task that has only been achieved a very few number of times in all of human history.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Well, the discussion is about vaccinations. My approach to weight loss (which is successful) is highly conservative and science based. My approach to vaccinations (all kinds) is the same.

    It boggles my mind that a very natural approach to disease prevention - vaccination - isn't embraced by the all-natural crowd. After all, it's not like antibiotics which are discovered bacterial poisons. It's alerting our very own natural defences to genuine threats. Kind of like fire drills for our bodies.

    I think the reasons for resistance, when and why it shows up, is very well described in the article. Resistance develops because of a skewed perception of risk, fear of lab coats, and big government. Just because the government decides something is good for us doesn't automatically make it suspect, does it?

    Brazil's guidelines are interesting but untested. We'll know in a decade or so if their approach is superior.
  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,840 Member
    edited November 2017
    @jgnatca, I thought that article was talking more about attempts to eradicate diseases - which obviously does need a very high level of compliance, but also brings great benefits. It's not so obvious to me that flu is in the same category. You'd need the high level of compliance every year, at the right time of year, and you'll still have folks catching the flu anyway because the thing mutates so fast they can't vaccinate against every strain. Those sorts of things all work against compliance with the flu vaccine specifically; it's even more of an uphill struggle than the standard childhood vaccines. I'm just not sure it's worth really fighting that uphill battle every single year; you come back to the same place again next year.

    FWIW I totally agree you should get vaccinated before you see your dad. If I had contact with those sorts of vunerable people I'd go out of my way to get the flu shot too. Ditto if it was suggested I get it by my doctor (it's only suggested for vunerable groups in the UK). I'm just wondering what the cut off is for making it worthwhile to really push vaccinating the population as a whole as opposed to something else. Obesity was just a MFP relevant suggestion. You could even compare it to pushing vaccinating for something else, like the newish HPV vaccine. Or a "let's eradicate X in our country" campaign. 'Twould be an interesting policy experiment for one year - and if it really went badly, you can swiftly revert to the previous level of flu vaccine advertising the next year, or alternate between flu and something else.

    PS You say experience of people dying from the flu - I only know one person who has even had it, and it wasn't the seasonal flu. If that's what you're fighting against you really are onto a losing battle with the average person. I guess the situation is different where you are and most people will know plenty who have had the flu, even if they didn't die/need hospitalization.

    I like the look of Brazil's guidelines! I think if they're followed they'll bring more benefits than just lower rates of obesity; there will be social benefits to people taking a bit of time out and eating together too. Not a fan of the ban on cake though (but I love baking and decorating cakes, so there's my bias! And no, it isn't what made me fat.).

    Once again I would like to reiterate that the situation is not different where you are. Where you are has the highest rate of death from flu of any country in Europe. The fact that you don't personally know any of those people has skewed your perspective, and you should not mistake your perspective for reality.
  • maura_tasi
    maura_tasi Posts: 196 Member
    bachster1 wrote: »
    Wanna see what other people think about this topic.
    I for one am very neutral on it. Working in Healthcare I see if fit. However I also see negative effects of it.

    What's your thoughts?

    I'm for, but not for me. I don't get sick, really at all, so I don't unless forced (Vet/USN medical)...BUT if you are predisposed to ailments, allergies or otherwise immune suppressed: YES (& I have lived all over the world/ multiple climates; native Great Laker) I understand the push for all, but we still don't understand the viruses quite that well. I leave my nasal shot for the person who needs it more. It's the only time I "get sick", so take it!

    The reason perfectly healthy people get flu shots and other vaccinations is to keep up herd immunity. Herd immunity protects those who cannot get certain vaccinations for any reason and for those who are immunocompromised. It doesn't matter if you don't get sick often, by protecting yourself you are protecting those who are more susceptible to illness.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited November 2017
    maura_tasi wrote: »
    bachster1 wrote: »
    Wanna see what other people think about this topic.
    I for one am very neutral on it. Working in Healthcare I see if fit. However I also see negative effects of it.

    What's your thoughts?

    I'm for, but not for me. I don't get sick, really at all, so I don't unless forced (Vet/USN medical)...BUT if you are predisposed to ailments, allergies or otherwise immune suppressed: YES (& I have lived all over the world/ multiple climates; native Great Laker) I understand the push for all, but we still don't understand the viruses quite that well. I leave my nasal shot for the person who needs it more. It's the only time I "get sick", so take it!

    The reason perfectly healthy people get flu shots and other vaccinations is to keep up herd immunity. Herd immunity protects those who cannot get certain vaccinations for any reason and for those who are immunocompromised. It doesn't matter if you don't get sick often, by protecting yourself you are protecting those who are more susceptible to illness.

    I don't support the idea of not getting vaccinated because you think you won't get sick but speaking just in terms of pure logic if you 100% believe you will not get the flu whether or not you get vaccinated then you believe you will not be a vector for transmission and therefore someone pointing out herd immunity would not change your mind since in your mind you aren't going to get sick therefore you aren't going to act as a vector.
  • garlic7girl
    garlic7girl Posts: 2,234 Member
    I am for them but totally against them being tied to a job. If they are tied to a job they need to say it in the interview. People need jobs!
  • TonyB0588
    TonyB0588 Posts: 9,520 Member
    I've never had the shot, and most people I know wouldn't have had it either.

    Seems to depend a bit on what country you live in apparently.
  • Westschmeis
    Westschmeis Posts: 350 Member
    Predators tend to focus on those herd members who are exceptional or noticebly different and not using the protection of the herd.
    Just sayn
  • perkymommy
    perkymommy Posts: 1,642 Member
    edited November 2017
    I work in health care and have to have it or wear a mask for 7 months around patients. I've never gotten sick from it but only had it a couple of times so far because I take breaks from working in health care related work. I'm not completely sure about it but I've been told the dangers and I do think it could cause nerve issues. I had headaches last time I got it that were nerve related and my carpal tunnel worsened the first year I got a flu shot, but then again it could be coincidence.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    TonyB0588 wrote: »
    I've never had the shot, and most people I know wouldn't have had it either.

    Seems to depend a bit on what country you live in apparently.

    It might be worthwhile to check the hospitalization/death rates for your country during flu season.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,160 Member
    NoxDineen wrote: »
    The influenza (flu) epidemic of 1918 killed more people than WWI (1914-1918).

    So yeah. I'm all for the flu shot.

    time.com/3731745/spanish-flu-history/

    "..... And understanding the full story of Spanish flu could help develop vaccines to protect us from the next flu epidemic — an epidemic that is inevitable, as Hultin told TIME in 1998. In the meantime, there’s only one surefire method of surviving pandemic flu, according to Hultin: Isolate yourself in a mountain hideaway until the outbreak subsides. TIME explains: “It was a tactic… successfully used in 1918 by a village just 30 miles from Brevig. Its elders, after learning of the advancing plague, stationed armed guards at the village perimeter with orders to shoot anyone who tried to enter. The village survived unscathed.”....."

    That is an interesting case you brought up. I did not know the professionals were calling for another flu epidemic.
This discussion has been closed.