Who's getting the H1N1 shot?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Drury18

I'm sorry but I find this to be the most pathetic thing I've read on this subject to date.

Ashamed of ourselves? For what? For making a choice we have the RIGHT to make? For making a choice that we feel is INFORMED? For making the choice that, like you, is the correct one for our situations?

You have your right to make your choice. We have the right to make ours.

But to stand there and pull this "Better Then You" crap is pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

I could in the same breath say "I hope all you guys who got the shot and forced it upon your children are ashamed of yourselves for harming innocent and healthly people if any deadly or paralyzing side effects happen" but you know what, I don't. I just suggest that while you have your right to choose to get this shot, I disagree.

As I said earlier, these scare tactics and hype are not going to win anyone over and certainly not how you prove a point.

Yes you have the right to make the choice, just like you have the right to choose whether or not you wear a seatbelt. Mind you if you fly through the window of your car in hindsight it will have proven to be a very unwise choice that one would think you'd regret.

The best science we have to date says the vaccine is not harmful. A bunch of psuedo-scientists say it is harmful. That's what this really seems to boil down to for me.

re: better than you crap

I do think I'm making a better decision than you. You think you're making a better decision than me. I don't think I'm better than you. Chillax dude.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Ethaniel

Dead Virus is not equivalent to an Alive Virus no matter how much work they do.

Says you.

Virologists, immunologists, medical doctors and the whole medical establish say otherwise. What hey, what do they know?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Peanut

So no real back-up to say that, right now, the seasonal flu is more prevalent than H1N1?

Don't know which one is more prevalent right now, could be h1n1, your doc would know better than I; that's not my point anyway. The point that I'm making is that traditional flu's have been proven to kill way more times than swine flu.

If you're claiming swine flu is going to be more prevalent and/or deadly than typical flu strains this year, than the hones is on you to support that claim, not on me to refute it. I'm not saying this is wrong either, just asking for some medical sources to back it up.

Anywho, I live with a high risk person who's already been in intensive care with lung problems once in her short life. I'll take any and all shots they want to give me if it helps keep her a little more safe.

Completely understandable, I would do the same.

[troutman]

Bill Maher (normally rational) gets schooled on vaccines/swine flu:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1069

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._b_323834.html

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2040

In my mind that is the true benefit of the influenza vaccines: decreasing the morbidity and mortality of populations. The benefit for populations is derived through vaccinating individuals. That requires a bit of altruism on the part of those receiving the vaccine, as they may be getting vaccinated more for the benefit of others than for themselves. However, at least in the US, a premium is currently placed on being a self centered narcissist; indirectly helping others, even for MD’s and RN’s, is apparently not on the to do list.

Do flu vaccines work? It depends on what the meaning of is is. If you are simplistic and like binary answers, yes or no, then you can pick yes or pick no, and find studies to support your contention that the vaccine doesn’t work.

If you realize that medicine is subtle and nuanced, and often the answers are filled with qualifiers and uncertainty, that the practice of medicine is messy, I think the answer is that the flu vaccine is of benefit. And that the more people who get the vaccine, the greater the benefit for everyone.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Well the typically seasonal flu kills about 30,000 in the US and hospitalizes 200,000 every year. The flu vaccine is the single best way to fight the flu, so no it's not unnecessary.

How would those numbers change if 100% of people were vaccinated? Probably not a whole lot. Many people, like myself, rarely get sick, and don't need a flu shot. Many people get flu shots because they regularly get sick, and even after a flu shot they still regularly get sick.

The single best way to fight the flu is to rest at home, if at all possible.

We live in a society that seems to think that getting sick is such a terrible thing. It's not. People sometimes get sick. Sometimes they die. That's part of life.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by troutman

Bill Maher (normally rational) gets schooled on vaccines/swine flu:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1069

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._b_323834.html

I was just listening to the Real Time podcast on my way to work this morning and was totally shocked at his opinion on this. I typically agree with him on most issues, but I felt like I was listening to Jim Carrey this morning. So weird.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Burninator

]The only mass panic and over sensationalized that is happening is on the internet and in the media. But honestly would you get your medical advice from them? The Public Health Agency of Canada is much better source for information.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alert-ale.../index-eng.php

Agreed, that's the same website I've been looking at, and the reason I don't feel I need to line up for the shot yet. They're not being nearly as dramatic as some in this thread.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Drury18

I'm sorry but I find this to be the most pathetic thing I've read on this subject to date.

Ashamed of ourselves? For what? For making a choice we have the RIGHT to make? For making a choice that we feel is INFORMED? For making the choice that, like you, is the correct one for our situations?

You have your right to make your choice. We have the right to make ours.

But to stand there and pull this "Better Then You" crap is pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

I could in the same breath say "I hope all you guys who got the shot and forced it upon your children are ashamed of yourselves for harming innocent and healthly people if any deadly or paralyzing side effects happen" but you know what, I don't. I just suggest that while you have your right to choose to get this shot, I disagree.

As I said earlier, these scare tactics and hype are not going to win anyone over and certainly not how you prove a point.

Well I would say that your are not informed, because there isn't a good reason for not getting the flu shot, unless you have allergic reactions to the flu shot, are younger than 2 years old, or have some other medical reason for not being able to receive the flu shot.

Another reason why I want other people to get the flu shot is because the shot does not provide 100% immunity. So we have to rely on herd immunity. Which won't happen unless enough people get the shot. And if this thread is any indication it doesn't look good. Herd immunity will help protect people who can't get the flu shot. Like infants, the infirm and those with immune disorders.

[Drury18]

Originally Posted by Sliver

The best science we have to date says the vaccine is not harmful. A bunch of psuedo-scientists say it is harmful. That's what this really seems to boil down to for me.

They said that in '78 too. And while you can say that we've made progress in 30 years, plently of mistakes are still being made.

And basing your decision on what "scientists" say as opposed to "psuedo-scientists" to me seems foolish. Is anyone arguing against the vaccine automatically in the psuedo group for you because their opinions are different and what you choose not to hear? Are you not open to hearing both sides of the debate in a unbiased manner in order to make the best decision?

I throw this out there because how many times in history has a "pseudo-scientiest" been proven correct and brilliant when balked at by their peers?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Drury18

They said that in '78 too. And while you can say that we've made progress in 30 years, plently of mistakes are still being made.

And basing your decision on what "scientists" say as opposed to "psuedo-scientists" to me seems foolish. Is anyone arguing against the vaccine automatically in the psuedo group for you because their opinions are different and what you choose not to hear? Are you not open to hearing both sides of the debate in a unbiased manner in order to make the best decision?

I throw this out there because how many times in history has a "pseudo-scientiest" been proven correct and brilliant when balked at by their peers?

Are you a Creationist per chance?

(serious question)

[Drury18]

Not even close to one.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Drury18

I throw this out there because how many times in history has a "pseudo-scientiest" been proven correct and brilliant when balked at by their peers?

I can't think of an example.

[FurnaceFace]

Lots of good info on the government site which is germane to the back and forth going on here.

First, in general we should understand sequencing, especially those who are planning on camping out for the shot like it's a new gadget:

While there will be enough H1N1 flu virus vaccine for all Canadians who need and want protection, not everyone can be immunized at the same time. Vaccine sequencing refers to the Government of Canada advice to provinces and territories on which groups and populations will benefit most from vaccination so that the timing and location of immunization clinics can be targeted appropriately.
Q2. What are the GoC recommendations on who should get the vaccine first?
Keeping in mind that we have ordered enough vaccine for every Canadian that needs and wants to be immunized, our basic approach is to ensure those that need it most get it first.
Those who will benefit most from immunization and those who care for them include:

• People under 65 with chronic health conditions
• Pregnant women
• Children 6 months to less than 5 years of age
• People living in remote and isolated settings or communities
• Health care workers involved in pandemic response or the delivery of essential health care services
• Household contacts and care providers of persons at high risk who cannot be immunized or may not respond to vaccines
• Populations otherwise identified as high risk
  

Others who would benefit from immunization include:

• Children 5 to 18 years of age
• First responders
• Poultry and swine workers
• Adults 19 to 64 years of age
• Adults 65 and older

To me the above says if you're a healthy adult, steer clear of the clinics for a few days so those who really need it, get it.

And the debate on who it affects more:

Adults 19 to 64 years of age: As compared to adults over 65, this group has an increased rate of infection and a higher risk of severe outcomes.
Adults 65 and older: Immunization is one of the most effective ways to protect all members of our communities. Although healthy adults 65 and older are less likely to contract the virus, by encouraging all age groups to be immunized, we can reduce the chance of exposing vulnerable populations to the virus.

[mykalberta]

Its amazing to me the blind faith that some people put in the medical community - they dont question anything - they just accept it because they play the "or you could die" card.

Astounding really.

[Drury18]

The Earth revolving around the Sun?

Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed (at least outwardly) to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began supporting heliocentrism publicly, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. Although he was cleared of any offence at that time, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture" in February 1616,[10] and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I hope none of you anti-science guys get H1N1, but if you do you should be ashamed of yourselves for not doing everything you could to protect yourself and your loved ones.

Science guy here. I'm not sure yet if I should get it. Should I be ashamed also?

Originally Posted by Sliver

The best science we have to date says the vaccine is not harmful. A bunch of psuedo-scientists say it is harmful. That's what this really seems to boil down to for me.

I asked Lchoy (whose opinion I'd probably value more than most in this thread)earlier in the thread regarding how complete the trials for this vaccine compared to normal trials have been. He's going to get back to me on it.

My question for you is that given that there is a significant possibility that this vaccine has been subjected to a fraction of what is normally considered best practice for clinical trials of vaccines does that make someone a bad person for not wanting to subject themselves or their loved ones to the injection based on what can be construed as incomplete evidence?

You might be happy with the best science to date and more power to you but suggesting that I should be ashamed simply because I want to make a more informed decision and have concerns regarding the thoroughness/quantity of replications of the clinical trials is just simply .... wrong.

It's all about informed decision. You feel there is sufficient information to make an informed decision to get the jab. I don't. I'll wait and see the figures when people start getting jabbed re. side effects.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Agreed, that's the same website I've been looking at, and the reason I don't feel I need to line up for the shot yet. They're not being nearly as dramatic as some in this thread.

I'm trying not to be over dramatic, but there is so much misinformation about the flu and the flu shot in this thread, it's hard not to get a little excited. I'll be getting my flu shot this year as I do every year. Everyone of course has the choice not too, but I think everyone should be informed with the correct information first.



Think of it as the same as wearing your seat belt. My chances are pretty low of getting into an accident. I've never worn my seat belt and I've never been in an accident. In fact I know someone who one time wore a seat belt and he got into an accident. Plus I figure that if I get into an accident without a seat belt that I will just be stronger for the next accident. Besides I have heard of people getting hurt by seat belts. I don't want to risk it.

Is a seat belt risk free? No. Is a seat belt 100% effective in a crash? No. Is it safer to wear your seat belt than not wear it? You bet. The flu vacinne is your seat belt against the flu.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Lots of good info...

I do find it kind of ironic that because of all the hype, and there only being, what, 4 flu shot clinics throughout the entire city, that there are going to be huge masses of people waiting to get the shots. Sounds to me like a pretty good way to pick-up the flu - go hang out with a couple hundred high risk individuals for a few hours in close quarters.

[Ashartus]

A few people were asking about the prevalence of 2009 H1N1 vs. regular seasonal flu. The Public Health Agency of Canada has been doing some surveillance (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/fluwatch/index-eng.php); the latest data (for the week ending October 10) shows "This week, 99.9% of the positive influenza A subtyped specimens were Pandemic (H1N1) 2009." That could change once we get into the actual flu season, and I believe almost all of the testing is done on people with severe enough conditions to warrant hospitalizatoin, but it looks like it's mostly the 2009 H1N1 out there right now.

You can also read the full report, which has detailed stats on flu surveillance and hospitalizations, including information on age, sex, and underlying medical conditions. The pregnant women stats are a bit scary - 23.5% of deaths have been pregnant women, and I believe they only represent something like 1% of the population at most. Overall we aren't in a full-blown pandemic right now, but flu prevalence is higher than normal for this time of year and increasing.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Drury18

The Earth revolving around the Sun?

Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed (at least outwardly) to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began supporting heliocentrism publicly, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. Although he was cleared of any offence at that time, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture" in February 1616,[10] and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest

Galileo was hardly a pseudo-scientist. Scientists correct other scientists all of the time.