Who's getting the H1N1 shot?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by valo403

Judging by the poll, "most" is 15 people above 50%. While technically I guess that makes you right, it's pretty disingenuous to act as if it's a closed issue for the majority.

And don't pretend like there weren't a number of posters doing a whole lot of over the top fear mongering throughout this thread.

Did you seriously think I meant "most of the people who answered a poll in a thread on an internet forum?"

I doubt you honestly thought that--you're pretty smart. If you mean that "most" was in that case just a rhetorical fluorish, then I guess that's probably true. Let me instead say this. "A reasonable person would conclude that the balance of risks in this case indicates that getting vaccinated was and remains a very good idea."

I will also stand by my feeling that "most" people who support the vaccine probably agree with the above statement. Don't forget that internet message boards tend to attract the angriest, shrillest voices to these debates.

If you want to see fearmongering, take a look at the crowd who claim that vaccines have massive undisclosed health risks, cause autism in children and cause cheerleaders to walk backwards. Those people are fearmongerers.

The people who shlep their children down to the clinic to get the flu vaccine aren't fearmongering. They're just sensible.

[joe_mullen]

Originally Posted by HOOT

I have no problem with them wasting money on something like this. Some people needed it and some people felt they needed it so it was done. Nothing you can do about it now. What I have a problem with is the people who were getting it and telling us who weren't that we were all going to die and we are killing those around us.

How many times does it need to be stated for people to understand that this was NOT a waste of money. Anyone with even an elementary understanding of health policy and economics is well aware that vaccination programs SAVE money on a population scale. Why is this so hard for you to understand. In addition, the main goal of the H1N1 vaccination is to prevent complications from the condition, prevent hospital/clinic visits and decrease loses in productivity in the private sector.

[joe_mullen]

Originally Posted by jammies

As I recall, my argument was more along the lines of the H1N1 vaccination having far less effect on your long-term health than improving your physical condition would, and that the idea of getting the shot to make yourself "safe" was a crock. Your argument ignored the further point that while there are possible negative ramifications to getting the flu shot, there really aren't any for eating better and exercising more, and thus you can't set them up as equivalent behaviours that are equally attractive and beneficial.

I didn't get the shot, so I missed out on the two-three days of nausea and flu symptoms I get (minimum) with every flu shot. I also didn't get the flu. So for me, I ended up with the optimum result after taking a calculated risk.
If you examined the risks and decided that the shot was for you, then I have no issue - my issue is, was, and always shall be that this was never a MORAL issue and that framing it in such a manner was not only mistaken, but repugnant.

There are negligible "negative ramifications" from flu vaccination programs compared to the positive health and economical effects. This is a well established scientific fact over more than 30 year of study.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by joe_mullen

How many times does it need to be stated for people to understand that this was NOT a waste of money. Anyone with even an elementary understanding of health policy and economics is well aware that vaccination programs SAVE money on a population scale. Why is this so hard for you to understand. In addition, the main goal of the H1N1 vaccination is to prevent complications from the condition, prevent hospital/clinic visits and decrease loses in productivity in the private sector.

So Canada needed to let half of it expire and waste money? Not saying vaccines are a waste of money because some people need it. But going over board and actually wasting money doing it is my problem.Why is that so hard to understand?

[joe_mullen]

Originally Posted by HOOT

So Canada needed to let half of it expire and wasted money? Not saying vaccines are a waste of money because some people need it. But going over board and actually wasting money doing it is my problem.Why is that so hard to understand?

Fair enough, I can't argue that too much was purchased, although I'd be curious to see the data on how much would be left over if the vast majority of the population got vaccinated like they should. Even still, I would argue that there was likely still a net cost savings to the government even with the excess vaccine available.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by joe_mullen

Fair enough, I can't argue that too much was purchased, although I'd be curious to see the data on how much would be left over if the vast majority of the population got vaccinated like they should. Even still, I would argue that there was likely still a net cost savings to the government even with the excess vaccine available.

Maybe but how much was actually wasted in dollars? What difference would that money make actually being used? Just surprises me that in 2010 there isn't enough data and organization to realize not all 32 million people are getting the shot and even if they are they aren't doing it in a matter of days.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Maybe but how much was actually wasted in dollars? What difference would that money make actually being used? Just surprises me that in 2010 there isn't enough data and organization to realize not all 32 million people are getting the shot and even if they are they aren't doing it in a matter of days.

Most of the waste occurred because they initially thought 2 doses would be needed, and by the time data started coming in showing 1 dose was enough the order had already been made. Also, if the flu had turned out to be another Spanish Flu there would have been a lot more people getting it, and running out completely would've been a major public relations disaster. However, I think they should have donated the excess supply to 3rd world countries as soon as they realized they wouldn't need it.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

However, I think they should have donated the excess supply to 3rd world countries as soon as they realized they wouldn't need it.

And you are saying that they didn't do this?

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

And you are saying that they didn't do this?

They eventually did "loan" some excess to 3rd world countries, but they could've done it a lot sooner.