Flu Shots are out!

chunkyfrog wrote:I have to agree with Blackspinner.
I feel it is my DUTY to contribute to 'herd immunity' by getting my shot.
--thus helping protect those who cannot or will not be immunized.
My benefit is first to my health; but also to my neighbors.
Those of us who are rational must keep on trying. . .

I have independent thinking disorder. That's probably why I don't agree with you. Some of my teachers recognized the symptoms when I was young, but none of the treatments worked. I suppose it didn't help that my parents refused to acknowledge the problem. At this point, there's not much I can do but muddle on.

Otter wrote:

archangle wrote:Option 1) The vaccine that kills few if any people.
Option 2) The risk of naturally occurring flu that kills 40,000 people a year in the US.

How many of those people would have died soon of something else if they did not get the flu? This is a real question, not rhetoric. Do you know?

The foolishness of that question is astounding. Even if you assume half of them would have died of other causes it's still 20,000 dead from flu vs. almost none from the vaccine.

In terms of knowing the numbers, that's why we have peer reviewed studies with published methodologies and statistical confidence intervals instead of just wild guesses.

Otter wrote:

Do you really think option 2 is a better choice because of some theory about short term vs. long term immunity in the population as a whole?

That's one of several reasons for my personal choice. I would not presume to choose for anyone else.

Just because I point out the foolishness of your choice and the errors of your arguments doesn't mean I intend to force you to change your choice. I don't agree with mandatory seat belt laws. I'm still going to disagree with anyone who tries to convince others not to wear seatbelts because "you're safer if you're thrown clear of the car in an accident."

archangle wrote:

Otter wrote:

archangle wrote:Option 1) The vaccine that kills few if any people.
Option 2) The risk of naturally occurring flu that kills 40,000 people a year in the US.

How many of those people would have died soon of something else if they did not get the flu? This is a real question, not rhetoric. Do you know?

The foolishness of that question is astounding. Even if you assume half of them would have died of other causes it's still 20,000 dead from flu vs. almost none from the vaccine.

In terms of knowing the numbers, that's why we have peer reviewed studies with published methodologies and statistical confidence intervals instead of just wild guesses.

How is it foolish to ask a question when I don't know the answer? Is there wisdom in ignorance? As I tried to clarify, it's a real question, not rhetoric. You've obviously done some reading on the subject, and I thought perhaps you had seen a study which included some data on the question. I did not say that that x number of dead would be acceptable. That, and any conclusions on my part based on data I don't have, are entirely in your imagination.

Otter wrote:

Do you really think option 2 is a better choice because of some theory about short term vs. long term immunity in the population as a whole?

That's one of several reasons for my personal choice. I would not presume to choose for anyone else.

Just because I point out the foolishness of your choice and the errors of your arguments doesn't mean I intend to force you to change your choice."

I didn't say you were. My point was that I am speaking only of my own choice and not suggesting that anyone else should make the same one.

I don't believe the available data is clear enough to support any position on flu vaccination as the absolute truth. We know that flu shots will reduce the incidence of flu in people who have strong immune systems already. There is a tradeoff between this and long term immunity. There is little evidence that vaccinating infants or the very old does any good. Some of the ingredients in flu vaccine are decidedly unhealthy, though whether or not they do any serious harm in the dosages they are used remains extremely controversial, and the debate about this has become so strongly polarized I have trouble believing the claims from either side. Herd immunity seems a valid theory to me, but I'd be a lot more likely to jump on the vaccination bandwagon if it could safely give us lifetime immunity to the targeted strains. A live vaccine would be better as far as long-term immunity goes, but it would also be more risky to both the individual taking it and the people around him. In all of this, I have more questions than answers.

Perhaps you are legitimately misunderstanding what I'm saying, but you have repeatedly taken my words and then gone one step further to arrive at something that's easy to attack. If your arguments are so rational and are well supported by the science, then why is it that you need these straw men? Failing to succeed with this tactic, you've become rude. As much as I enjoy corresponding with you on the CPAP threads, I think this one may be past its expiration date.

Otter wrote: How is it foolish to ask a question when I don't know the answer? Is there wisdom in ignorance? As I tried to clarify, it's a real question, not rhetoric. Y

You keep grasping at straws arguing about minor details for something that's conclusively proven to be good for you. Look at the NUMBERS.

40,000 plus or minus deaths a year from the flu.
A handful of deaths per year from the vaccine.

The numbers have been clear for decades. Even the panic about swine flu vaccines in 1976 was proven not to be real when you look at the numbers.

You can bring up all kinds of secondary effects that can happen. It's still 40,000 to squat odds.

You're the one who keeps bringing up the strawman of mandatory vaccination.

Otter wrote: There is little evidence that vaccinating infants or the very old does any good. Some of the ingredients in flu vaccine are decidedly unhealthy, though whether or not they do any serious harm in the dosages they are used remains extremely controversial, and the debate about this has become so strongly polarized I have trouble believing the claims from either side. Herd immunity seems a valid theory to me, but I'd be a lot more likely to jump on the vaccination bandwagon if it could safely give us lifetime immunity to the targeted strains.

We don't need a lifetime immunity, we have yearly shots. Tetanus shots don't give you a life time immunity either. In fact life time immunity for flu is useless. Flu mutates regularly and last years immunity is unimportant. One of the reasons the over 55 crowd was not first in line for the H1N1 shots was because we had some immunity to it from 40 years ago. It was similar but not the same. Oh and I got a mild version any - that turned into pneumonia. So whoopy - 40 years repeat cycle for "life time immunity".

archangle wrote:You're the one who keeps bringing up the strawman of mandatory vaccination.

Do I? I think I mentioned that once, in the context of talking about herd immunity, and I believe I said mandatory or nearly universal voluntary vaccination. My point had to do with vaccination for the sake of herd immunity, and I think that was clear enough.

You're managing to keep two or three steps ahead of me, but it's never in the direction I was going.