A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
jhc68 wrote:I don't think anti-vaccine people are neanderthals. They are parasites playing the odds. The mentality is that there is no need for them to be immunized because everyone else will.
Me. I'm old enough to have been in the first generation to get polio shots. It was a common thing in the 1950's to know people in "iron lungs" (youngeer posters won't know what the hell I'm referring to, lucky for them). When reminders of the reasons for vaccinations disappear then it is easy to discount the need for them.
Bingo. People crying out about how 1/1 million people may suffer some moderate adverse reaction forget that the shot they're getting probably protects against one of the diseases that used to infect half the population, while killing a significant percentage of those infected.
Okay, so do any of you folks have any advice for me about how to convince someone who got violently ill after a flu vaccine a few years ago that giving it another go this year would be a good idea?
As was already pointed out, there is not enough information for definite advice, but I would tell him not to risk the shot.
Thanks all for the advice. To be honest, I don’t know how “violent” her illness was. Back in the April-May timeframe, when the H1N1 epidemic in Mexico first became known, while I was preparing for my three-month visit to Moscow, my then-girlfriend (now wife) and I were concerned about it, not because we were particularly worried about catching the flu, but we worried that the Russian authorities might suspend air travel from North America, or impose some highly restrictive quarantine regimen on travelers arriving from here. The media frenzy had largely died down by the time I arrived in mid-June, and although we were all required to remain on the plane until a medical crew had gone through and taken everyone’s temperature, it was carried out with surprising efficiency and didn’t cause any further hassles. Afterwards I essentially stopped paying attention to the news stories about swine flu, since they didn’t seem to have any direct bearing on my life.
I returned to the U.S. in September — alone, since it will take several months yet to get my wife an immigrant visa, and since now that the paperwork is underway, she could be turned away at the border if she tried to enter again on her current tourist visa — and a couple of weeks ago the topic of swine flu came up again during one of our daily conversations on Skype. Apparently a few cases have popped up in her neighborhood of Yuzhnoye Butovo, and a couple of the local schools were temporarily closed. She asked how bad the swine flu was these days in America, and I replied that I hadn’t been paying very close attention to it, but it seemed that the news outlets were no longer keeping track of the precise number of cases in the country/state/city. I mentioned that flu vaccines would be offered through my work in a couple of weeks. She said the same is true for her work there in Moscow, but that she was “probably” going to pass on it. That’s when she related the story of getting sick from the vaccine a few years ago. The topic hasn’t come up between us since.
I’m still a little skeptical of the assertions here that getting vaccinated is really a matter of civic duty rather than a personal choice. If the vaccine is truly effective in protecting the recipients, then how is their health going to be put at risk by the choice of others to remain in the unprotected group? And if the overall effectiveness is really dependent on near-100% public compliance, then the public policy and “marketing” of the vaccine as non-free optional treatment seems to be seriously flawed.
BruceFlorman wrote:T.... I’m still a little skeptical of the assertions here that getting vaccinated is really a matter of civic duty rather than a personal choice. If the vaccine is truly effective in protecting the recipients, then how is their health going to be put at risk by the choice of others to remain in the unprotected group?.....
There's a large (the largest) group of people who will neither rush out to get vaccinated, nor have a strong stance against it. So they're unlikely to be immune, so they become at risk. And there are those who are pro, but procrastinate, or are in an area where supplies are low, etc., etc.
The more high-risk people who get shot up, the fewer potential Typhoid Marys there are out there to spread it to the rest of the populace.
(again, this is speaking vaccination in general, not focusing on Swine Flu)
BruceFlorman wrote:... I returned to the U.S. in September — alone, since it will take several months yet to get my wife an immigrant visa, and since now that the paperwork is underway, she could be turned away at the border if she tried to enter again on her current tourist visa — ...
That sounds like a Russian mail order bride. Cool.
gh wrote:The more high-risk people who get shot up, the fewer potential Typhoid Marys there are out there to spread it to the rest of the populace.
(again, this is speaking vaccination in general, not focusing on Swine Flu)
Nobody is saying "high risk" people shouldn't get the vaccine, including me in this very thread.
But in general, you have to think twice about getting something put into your body that has risk such that federal legislation specifically protects the manufacturers/providers from legal liability.
guru wrote:... But in general, you have to think twice about getting something put into your body that has risk such that federal legislation specifically protects the manufacturers/providers from legal liability.
The only reason federal legislation is required is because the lunatic fringe has found an ally in personal-injury lawyers who otherwise would make it impoossible for prophylactic medicine to be practiced.
That decision has nothing to do with "risk" of any significant nature.
Will some people get sick, yes. Will some people die, yes. Welcome to the real world; hopefully a real world where "some people" is kept at a manageable number.
I'm pretty sure Bill Maher thinks he will. In fact, he basically said that there's no use for almost any medicine, because he [and I guess he thinks everyone should just decide to follow suit] just wouldn't ever let himself get sick enough to need medicine.
I hope that secret doesn't get out, or I'll be out of a job before I graduate.
I know links to copyrighted material is inappropriate here, but go to a certain site that hosts videos and type in "bill maher anti-medication" and the very first video with Bob Costas and company is a prime example of how out of his gourd Maher is.
5:31 of some of the funniest (but in a bad way) schtick. Except he's serious.
Last edited by BisonHurdler on Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
guru wrote:... But in general, you have to think twice about getting something put into your body that has risk such that federal legislation specifically protects the manufacturers/providers from legal liability.
The only reason federal legislation is required is because the lunatic fringe has found an ally in personal-injury lawyers who otherwise would make it impoossible for prophylactic medicine to be practiced.
That decision has nothing to do with "risk" of any significant nature.
You're right of course. Getting a (yearly) shot of mercury can't possibly be bad for you. Especially if you're a child with a developing nervous system.
BisonHurdler wrote:In fact, he basically said that there's no use for almost any medicine, because he [and I guess he thinks everyone should just decide to follow suit] just wouldn't ever let himself get sick enough to need medicine
I assume he does not include surgery. Or, if he has appendicitis, he's just going to ride it out? Let's hope he does not get diabetes; maybe insulin does not count as medicine? And what if he gets blood poisoning? He'd forgo antibiotics?
I know what he's trying to say, but such an extreme statement makes him look naive.
guru wrote:Getting a (yearly) shot of mercury can't possibly be bad for you. Especially if you're a child with a developing nervous system.
Green potatoes contain neurotoxins but you never hear of people getting up in arms over that? On the other hand, maybe people would if they knew about it.
Last edited by Daisy on Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
BisonHurdler wrote:In fact, he basically said that there's no use for almost any medicine, because he [and I guess he thinks everyone should just decide to follow suit] just wouldn't ever let himself get sick enough to need medicine
I assume he does not include surgery. Or, if he has appendicitis, he's just going to ride it out? Let's hope he does not get diabetes; maybe insulin does not count as medicine? And what if he gets blood poisoning? He'd forgo antibiotics?
I know what he's trying to say, but such an extreme statement makes him look naive.
See my edit above and find the link to the video. Apparently the only reason anyone should take antibiotics, according to him, is if you're in a car wreck or suffer a war injury.
As a general rule, anti-vaccine folks usually seem pretty shortsighted. People like Bill Maher vehemently bash chlorinated water because "chlorine is a poison! would you drink a glass of chlorine!" Apparently he'd prefer to die of cholera than minuscule amounts of chlorine, but that's his decision
BisonHurdler wrote:Apparently the only reason anyone should take antibiotics, according to him, is if you're in a car wreck or suffer a war injury.
I assume he is not aware of all the life saving examples of antibiotics. I agree that they are oversubscribed but he's being a little extreme in this case.
BisonHurdler wrote:Apparently the only reason anyone should take antibiotics, according to him, is if you're in a car wreck or suffer a war injury.
I assume he is not aware of all the life saving examples of antibiotics. I agree that they are oversubscribed but he's being a little extreme in this case.
Certainly overprescribed (I have an exam on antibiotics tomorrow, by the way). But he's a bit off his rocker, I'd say.
BisonHurdler wrote:Apparently the only reason anyone should take antibiotics, according to him, is if you're in a car wreck or suffer a war injury.
I assume he is not aware of all the life saving examples of antibiotics. I agree that they are oversubscribed but he's being a little extreme in this case.
Certainly overprescribed (I have an exam on antibiotics tomorrow, by the way). But he's a bit off his rocker, I'd say.
After seeing his stance on chlorine, off his rocker, for sure.
Just noticed my typo above. :) So who are all the people buying this "Antibiotics Weekly"?
guru wrote:... But in general, you have to think twice about getting something put into your body that has risk such that federal legislation specifically protects the manufacturers/providers from legal liability.
The only reason federal legislation is required is because the lunatic fringe has found an ally in personal-injury lawyers who otherwise would make it impoossible for prophylactic medicine to be practiced.
That decision has nothing to do with "risk" of any significant nature.
You're right of course. Getting a (yearly) shot of mercury can't possibly be bad for you. Especially if you're a child with a developing nervous system.
Causation of autism by vaccination has been totally disproved. In the seventies/eighties we thought, there was a connection. There just isn't any strong supporting evidence for it anymore.
Pego wrote:Causation of autism by vaccination has been totally disproved. In the seventies/eighties we thought, there was a connection. There just isn't any strong supporting evidence for it anymore.
I saw in the paper this morning that autism has increased form 1 in 150 in the 70s, to 1 in a 100 now. Can that not be attributed to better diagnoses?
Pego wrote:Causation of autism by vaccination has been totally disproved. In the seventies/eighties we thought, there was a connection. There just isn't any strong supporting evidence for it anymore.
I saw in the paper this morning that autism has increased form 1 in 150 in the 70s, to 1 in a 100 now. Can that not be attributed to better diagnoses?
I'd use a wording "more liberal" than "better". Autism as a symptom is a part of several psychiatric entities. A true "early infantile autism of Kanner" is actually quite infrequent. The so-called Asberger's autism already has a lot less strict diagnostic requirements. Quite a few children with a label of "autism" are in fact a mixed bag of developmental abnormalities.
Pego wrote:Causation of autism by vaccination has been totally disproved. In the seventies/eighties we thought, there was a connection. There just isn't any strong supporting evidence for it anymore.
I saw in the paper this morning that autism has increased form 1 in 150 in the 70s, to 1 in a 100 now. Can that not be attributed to better diagnoses?
"Better" is not necessarily the word I'd use. "More liberal/loose" would be more appropriate. But it's misconstruing the facts like this that get people to jump aboard the anti-vaccine bandwagon.
Edit: Wow, I should start reading all replies before making one of my own. Basically just said what Pego already said.
Add me to the list of those that might have died without antibiotics for a very minor starting place. Blister on foot (somewhat) carefully lanced but got infected. As I understand it, one President's son died of such an infection in the early 1900's.
26mi235 wrote:Swine flu fears grow as NHS staff shun vaccine
The Guardian wrote:One medical director at another hospital added: "The word on the street in NHS staff circles is that the vaccine is no good and you shouldn't bother with it. Nurses in particular worry that there may be side-effects, that corners have been cut in producing the vaccine and that the generally mild nature of the virus means they don't need to take it. As few as 10%-15% of doctors may have it because we doctors believe ourselves to be above such trivial things as infections."
It is a very nasty disease in a small subset of cases (~1:1000), but with many getting the disease, it can be a big problem. A major problem is that the fatality rate among these people will jump when the number of available treatment slots get filled up. The numbers now are such that a surge could easily lead to exceeding the limited capacity to treat intensively. If the rate of severe cases increases from 1:1000 to 1:100, we would already be at the breaking point or past. In my opinion, any doctor or nurse that does not get the vaccine and infects a patient when they get sick is guilty of malpractice and should be liable for their actions. If the insurance companies told the medical people that they will change their rates based on their averting behavior or lack of it it might have some impact on the recalcitrance.
I hope that I have not exceeded fair use here:
"CHICAGO (Reuters) - Once swine flu patients are sick enough to need hospital care, they decline very fast, requiring ventilators and advanced treatments that quickly strain scarce hospital resources, several teams reported on Monday.
Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association they paint a picture of how younger, previously healthy people quickly developed severe respiratory failure, forcing doctors to use extreme measures to save them."
...
"Kumar said most people who get H1N1 will not have severe disease, which he said only occurs in about 1 in 1,000 patients. "The problem is, if you get half of your population with H1N1, that can turn into a lot of really sick people."
I just looked at the Texas state flu site and it lists 233 hospitalizations from h1n1. That presumably means at least 233,000 people have had h1n1 since April of this year. As for the original debate, most people are neither pro nor anti flu shot they are just lazy. I get mine because they come to the actual building I work in and I get it for free. The wife and kids have rarely received a flu shot because our family doctor doesn't usually give them and taking the effort to get them other places is more effort than we would normally go to.
donley2 wrote:As for the original debate, most people are neither pro nor anti flu shot they are just lazy. I get mine because they come to the actual building I work in and I get it for free.
True, easy access like this (which I also have) makes it a lot easier to adopt these vaccines.
I doubt Texas has had 230,000 cases yet. Hospitalization include cases that are probably less severe than the severe cases cited above. Two months ago my respiratory doc said that he current (i.e., August) had a case in the hospital on a ventilator and implied that the case was rather significant and if such cases were at all widespread that they would be overwhelmed. If the doctors and staff are also out in elevated numbers the situation would be worse.
tandfman wrote:There is an old joke about two guys, one Harvard, one Yale, in the men's room. The joke can be told in either direction, I suppose, but the way I first heard it, it went like this, after the Yalie washes his hands and the Harvard man doesn't.
Yale Guy: You know, at Yale, we wash our hands after we pee.
Harvard Guy: At Harvard, we don't pee on our hands.
And the Southern Boy, Harvard joke:
Southern boy goes up to Harvard as a freshman and gets lost. He is in the yard when he sees a guy with a pipe, tweed coat, looks like a professor so goes up to him looking for help:
Southern Boy: Sir, can ya'll tell me where the library's at? Harvard Prof: My good young man, here at Harvard College, we never end our sentences in a preposition. Southern Boy: OK, can ya'll tell me where the library's at, asshole?
LOL.....
and gh no one lives forever....live each day like it's your last, one day it will be.
This is a Marshfield Cinic information I received in yesterday's e-mail. The Marshfield Clinic is a well known multispecialty clinic with presence in many northcentral Wisconsin localities.
2009 H1N1 Vaccine Information
If you are interested in learning more about the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Vaccine or are looking for resources to find more information please read:
Vaccine Safety: The 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine has been made with the same laboratory and production methods and same approval process used to produce hundreds of millions of doses of the seasonal influenza vaccine each year. Clinical trials with the H1N1 vaccine to date have not turned up any side effects other than the typically mild reactions expected with any immunization.
The H1N1 vaccine is an extension of the normally provided seasonal vaccine, consider it to be the bonus fourth strain. If this virus strain had appeared earlier in the year it would have been included in the standard seasonal vaccine and would not have been a separate vaccine.
Vaccine efficacy: In clinical trials to date the efficacy of this vaccine has been 97%. It is an exact match to the currently circulating strain.
Vaccine Availability: Marshfield Clinic has received the first shipment of H1N1 vaccine, and we anticipate receiving more on a weekly basis. Because of the limited supply of H1N1 vaccine, and high priority that has been placed on vaccination of Health Care workers we encourage all staff to take advantage of the opportunity to be vaccinated to decrease transmission of this virus.
Live Attenuated Intranasal Vaccine (LAIV) is currently available and approved for administration to individuals between the ages of two to 49 years of age who are not pregnant and are otherwise healthy. We recommend that those employees who qualify to receive the LAIV do so, and reserve the injectable vaccine for those employees and patients who cannot receive LAIV.
Please use this information to reassure patients and staff about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
donley2 wrote:As for the original debate, most people are neither pro nor anti flu shot they are just lazy. I get mine because they come to the actual building I work in and I get it for free.
True, easy access like this (which I also have) makes it a lot easier to adopt these vaccines.
Of course, unless you're in a high-risk group, looks like H1N1 isn't in the cards for you anyway. The Beateous Babs works at Stanford Med, so she's had hers (mandatory for any personnel that enter the hospital), but she says there's no way I'll qualify.
gh wrote:Of course, unless you're in a high-risk group, looks like H1N1 isn't in the cards for you anyway. The Beateous Babs works at Stanford Med, so she's had hers (mandatory for any personnel that enter the hospital), but she says there's no way I'll qualify.
I thought I read that 250,000,000 (!!!) vaccines were ordered for the USA and the first batches are rolling out now!!!!!
When I had my boring-old-normal flu shot a couple of weeks ago, the pharmacist said it would be months before anything trickled down to low-risk people.
Marlow wrote:I thought I read that 250,000,000 (!!!) vaccines were ordered for the USA and the first batches are rolling out now!!!!!
You did. There will be more than enough for anyone who wants one.
The larger number of doses available is the result of only needing one shot, not two, and of needling less per shot that initially planned. Both of these things are a good deal for developing countries that would otherwise have trouble getting enough does at an acceptable cost.
