Get your flu shot

Justjim75 said:

In reply to Duke :

?? No rebuttal ??

You haven't posted a single fact here, and when asked to back it up, you just throw the question back in our face. Additionally, with medications such as this that have been around for a long time, you don't prove that they are safe, you are unable to prove that they are dangerous. We've pretty much established that they are not dangerous, with few exceptions such as Guillen Barre. 

In any case, between 1980 and 1995, approximately 383.6 million flu shots were administered. For flu shots administered prior to 1995, there have been 384 total events reported that had an onset of over 120 days (or unknown time). 0.0001%. Those 384 events include everything from agitation to abnormal dreams, weight loss to gingivitis. . The most common complaints were injection site hypersensitivity, injection site pain, injection site edema, fever, pain, and itching. 

If we include ALL adverse effects (onset at any time), we get 5,822. 0.0015%.

Going from (prior to) 1980 to today, we have 138,768 adverse events compared to 2.76 BILLION shots administered. 0.005%, and again, most of them were for things like "injection site pain". 

Here, go look these numbers up yourself: https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=BBACB65150CAA2974C7B6E16D38FDA1A

Your move, bud. Prove that it isn't safe. Should be a LOT easier than proving it is safe, but so far you've just come in here with nothing of any substance whatsoever.

Also: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

Here is where I got my information for influenza deaths. Can you provide better, more accurate figures? If not, what number should we be using?

T.J. said:

mtn said:

pinchvalve said:

Never had the flu, hardly ever have a cold or other illness, still get the flu shot. My daughter wound up in the ER with tubes draining fluid from her lungs and lots of other nasty complications.  It was bad, a flu shot would have prevented it. (first year at college, on her own, skipped her flu shot)  Only one data point, but it was enough to convince me to keep getting one.   

This is where the people who (a) don't have adverse reactions, (reactions like Dr. Boost, not the "I feel bad for 3 days but I'm still doing stuff"), and (b) don't get the flu shot regardless just confuse me. In the US, roughly 36,000 people die* and more than 200,000 are hospitalized every year because of influenza. The flu shot may or may not have the right strain, but if it is even 25% effective, and those who died and were hospitalized were able to get the flue shot, we'd be talking about 9,000 lives saved and 50,000 less hospitalizations. 

 

*Average based on data from 2010 through 2015. 2015-2018 are still estimates and haven't been properly verified yet; if we were to include said estimates, the average goes UP to 42,000.

Are you assuming that 100% of the 36,000 deaths, none of them got a flu shot?

Also, from what I've read, most all of the people listed with the flu, are never really verified to have the flu. They have flu-like symptoms and get diagnosed as having the flu, but nobody is taking their blood and verifying that they actually had/have the influenza virus or what strain it may be. So, I believe the numbers of folks who get and die from the flu are greatly exaggerated. It's similar to a guy who falls off a ladder doing some sort of prep for an incoming hurricane days before a storm of any type reaches him gets counted as a death from the hurricane.

We use the numbers we have - if you can provide better numbers, I'm happy to use them in my calculations. 

You bring up a good point though, the deaths could have been from a person who was vaccinated but got a different strain. Best I can do is to use the approximate national average of 50%. So knock it down to 4,500 deaths and 25,000 hospitalizations that would have been reduced.

OK, what the hell are you guys bickering about now!?!?

The Flu?!?!?   BAH!  A silly little thing like that?

The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most severe pandemic in recent history. It was caused by an H1N1 virus with genes of avian origin. Although there is not universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, it spread worldwide during 1918-1919.  In the United States, it was first identified in military personnel in spring 1918. It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States.

Mortality was high in people younger than 5 years old, 20-40 years old, and 65 years and older. The high mortality in healthy people, including those in the 20-40 year age group, was a unique feature of this pandemic. While the 1918 H1N1 virus has been synthesized and evaluated, the properties that made it so devastating are not well understood. With no vaccine to protect against influenza infection and no antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections that can be associated with influenza infections, control efforts worldwide were limited to non-pharmaceutical interventions such as isolation, quarantine, good personal hygiene, use of disinfectants, and limitations of public gatherings, which were applied unevenly.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html

Justjim75 said:

In reply to Duke :

?? No rebuttal ??

I’m not shadow boxing against a post like that. 

z31maniac said:

Curtis said:

mtn said:

Wow, the first well reasoned argument against it.

Some points/counterpoints:

• I wouldn't include SARs in your comparison. There is no SARs vaccine - at least not that I've ever heard.
• "No hope of eliminating the flu with a vaccine"... well, someone probably said the same thing about smallpox at one point. Someone said the same about the 300mph barrier, probably.
• Pertussis, Rubella, Mumps,  Measles, Polio, Chicken Pox, HepB, Meningitis, along with others I'm sure, probably the pneumonia one, are all required at many school districts. You don't hear about them because it is a once every few years thing. 
• It is also doing "something" to help herd immunity. Even if you don't think it is enough, it is doing a little bit.

 

But... what is it hurting you by doing it? 

SARS... no vaccine yet, but imminent.  

"no hope of eliminating..."  at current effective rates, there is no hope.  At current effective rates, the flu vaccine is no more effective than blood-letting or leeches at providing group immunity for the flu.  Right now the flu vaccine is like throwing three darts at a dartboard... but the dartboard isn't numbered, and you're trying to get a score of 99.

I don't have a firm stance on mandatory vaccines, but citing that they are mandatory should not be considered evidence of their effectiveness or requisition.

herd immunity... negative.  Herd immunity by definition can't even be considered a term (as it pertains to vaccines) unless the vaccine is considered a bona fide prevention.  25% (or whatever the current year's cocktail ends up preventing) is not "effective," it's a "hail mary" for something that has extremely little chance of killing you in the first place.  Someone mentioned seat belts earlier.  Would you wear a seat belt if it had a 25% chance of protecting you and a 75% chance of causing serious injury?

re: "what is it hurting you..."  My point is that I don't know, so I won't take ineffective drugs that might end up in a class action suit later.  Now, if it was 99.99% effective like many other vaccines, I might consider it.  In fact, by the very definition of a vaccine, it isn't a vaccine.  But I grew up putting Mercurochrome on cuts.  My parents grew up with DDT.  My grandparents grew up with thalidymide babies and Opium for cough syrup.  All things that we discovered later were no bueno.

My question is not "what is it hurting me," it's "are the benefits worth the potential risks?"  Right now, the risks seem to be zero, but the benefits are incredibly low.  I just don't see the point.

You were making a good point until you said what I have bolded. 

Because the flu vaccine is only 25% likely to prevent getting the flu, doesn't mean there is a 75% it's going to cause serious injury. It means there is a 75% chance it won't prevent you from getting the flu. 

Those are DRASTICALLY different meanings. I get that you were talking about seat belts, but that was a poor analogy to compare them.

I won't disagree, but my point was that someone used the seatbelt analogy.  I was continuing the analogy by comparing their functions.  The flu shot's job is to prevent the flu.  The seat belt's job is to prevent injury and death.

Jim Henson had a cold.

Now we have weird sounding muppets.

If you getting the flu is going to mess up my childhood, get a flu shot. If not, I don't care.

Justjim75 said:

In reply to Curtis :

"I didnt die" hardly means its safe.  Im still waiting on someone to show me a single long term study on any one of the numerous flu shots that have been injected into people.

You are arguing a moot point.  I agree that it might not be safe, but there is no evidence to support it.  We may discover in 5 years that everyone who got the shot is dead from toenail cancer, but until that happens you can't argue the point that they aren't safe.  Right now the data suggests that they are safe.

They might be safe like water, or they might be safe like mercury amalgam fillings in your teeth and we'll figure it out later... but for now, the data says they are safe.

In reply to z31maniac :

I was invited here by the op for discussion.

Why are you yrying so hard to get me to leave?

In reply to mtn :

Is the national average really only 50%. That surprises me a bit - I thought it would be higher with all the push for people to get them.

I don't know if there are better numbers, so using the CDC numbers is all we can do. I was just pointing out that those numbers are a guess since when you get the flu and go to the doctor, they do not take a sample from you, culture it and determine whether or not what you have is in fact influenza. Same goes for most who die. They just call it the flu. Also, those folks who were most at risk from the flu because of some other condition, may have gotten the flu and then died, but did the flu kill them or whatever medical condition they already had?

Justjim75 said:

In reply to z31maniac :

I was invited here by the op for discussion.

Why are you yrying so hard to get me to leave?

Because you haven't contributed anything of substance to the discussion. Back up your claims. Show some evidence. Don't put the burden of proof on us; we've proven our point multiple times over. 

Mtn..  Not to be a jerk, but why are you continuing to engage?  You're trying to argue with Time cube.. 

T.J. said:

In reply to mtn :

Is the national average really only 50%. That surprises me a bit - I thought it would be higher with all the push for people to get them.

I don't know if there are better numbers, so using the CDC numbers is all we can do. I was just pointing out that those numbers are a guess since when you get the flu and go to the doctor, they do not take a sample from you, culture it and determine whether or not what you have is in fact influenza. Same goes for most who die. They just call it the flu. Also, those folks who were most at risk from the flu because of some other condition, may have gotten the flu and then died, but did the flu kill them or whatever medical condition they already had?

 

Until we have better information, we have to take it as fact. And whether or not the flu or other condition killed them, I don't think it is wrong to say "they were killed and the flu played a part in their death". 

As for 50%.... It isn't even close to that high. 

US Dept of Health & Human Services

https://aspe.hhs.gov/cdc-%E2%80%94-influenza-deaths-request-correction-rfc

Just a start....

Fueled by Caffeine said:

Mtn..  Not to be a jerk, but why are you continuing to engage?  You're trying to argue with Time cube.. 

Because I want him to prove his hypothesis. Prove me wrong. Give me the data. So far Curtis has been able to make a structured, well reasoned argument with data to back it up, to support his not getting the flu shot. Seems he has put in the effort to make an informed decision. And even there he disagrees with JustJim. 

At the end of the day though, I am engaging because this matters. Public health matters, and the flu shot supports public health. Should be all the reasons I need to continue putting facts out there - at least until I, or someone else, can provide better data to refute what I've put forward.

But you are right, I should back out of the conversation as he is off in his own little fantasy world. 

SnowMongoose said:

As someone missing a chunk of his immune system, big thanks to those of you willing to go to a ridiculously small and probably free inconvenience to help yourself and everyone around you.     
Some of the rest of y'all would get along great with my sasquatch hunting sandy hook denying boss.  

(The possibility that some of you fall into both camps is equal parts amusing and terrifying)

This would be a valid argument for Measles or Polio, but not the flu.

I'm not a deny-freak or a conspiracy theorist, it's just that the math and science doesn't support it.  One of the arguments the anti-vaxxers give is that they should be able to choose whether or not they get vaccines because they assume if you don't want the Measles you'll get your own shot.  The problem with that argument is that the virus potentially mutates every time it reproduces in a new host making the vaccine obsolete.  We more or less eliminated Polio by keeping the numbers so low that the Polio population didn't have the chance to mutate and push past the vaccine.  We got ahead of it.  So when anti-vaxxers skip their vaccines and get one of these defunct diseases they are potentially doing real damage to the world population.  They could unknowingly generate a new strain of Measles or Polio that would cause a pandemic and infect nearly everyone regardless of their immunization.  This is the basis behind herd immunity.

In the case of the flu virus, it does nothing for herd immunity because of its ineffectiveness.  If you (with a poopy autoimmune system) get the flu vaccine, it will protect you from the few strains out of the 150 that exist.  For the sake of this discussion I'll name those strains 1, 2, and 3.  So let's say I get the shot, and I still contract flu #4.  You can get it from me because it's #4 and you're not inoculated to that strain.  Now let's say I don't get the shot and I get flu #2.  You likely won't get it from me because you're inoculated to that strain.  Whether or not I get the flu shot has zero impact on your likelihood of getting the flu from me.

The anti-vaxxer argument of "get your own shot " DOES work in the case of the flu.  In the case of Polio or the Measles, we got ahead of the disease and NOT getting those vaccines could cause major damage by allowing it to reproduce and mutate into something that the vaccine doesn't prevent.  (herd immunity)  In the case of the flu, you getting the shot is the best thing, but my getting the shot (or not) won't affect you at all.  The only reason in this scenario for me to get the flu shot would be if it had an impact on herd immunity... but it doesn't, so I don't.

disprove the harmonic cube and will $1K

mtn said:

Justjim75 said:

In reply to Duke :

?? No rebuttal ??

You haven't posted a single fact here, and when asked to back it up, you just throw the question back in our face. Additionally, with medications such as this that have been around for a long time, you don't prove that they are safe, you are unable to prove that they are dangerous. We've pretty much established that they are not dangerous, with few exceptions such as Guillen Barre. 

 

In any case, between 1980 and 1995, approximately 383.6 million flu shots were administered. For flu shots administered prior to 1995, there have been 384 total events reported that had an onset of over 120 days (or unknown time). 0.0001%. Those 384 events include everything from agitation to abnormal dreams, weight loss to gingivitis. . The most common complaints were injection site hypersensitivity, injection site pain, injection site edema, fever, pain, and itching. 

If we include ALL adverse effects (onset at any time), we get 5,822. 0.0015%.

 

Going from (prior to) 1980 to today, we have 138,768 adverse events compared to 2.76 BILLION shots administered. 0.005%, and again, most of them were for things like "injection site pain". 

Here, go look these numbers up yourself: https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=BBACB65150CAA2974C7B6E16D38FDA1A

Your move, bud. Prove that it isn't safe. Should be a LOT easier than proving it is safe, but so far you've just come in here with nothing of any substance whatsoever.

A well-researched post with references cited.  On the internet.  Major props :)

I will however point out that flu deaths are somewhat dubious numbers.  The 1918 pandemic was exacerbated by the poorer hygeine, lack of isolated sewer systems, lack of food safety, and modern medicine.  If an H1N1 outbreak happened again today, it wouldn't be anywhere close to the devastation it was 100 years ago.

The other thing that can't be easily quantified is how many deaths were actually CAUSED by the flu virus.  If a 90-year old man with two pig valves in his heart and diabetes gets the flu and he dies, was it really the flu, or was it blood sugar or his heart finally having enough and saying "when?"

If you live in a place where modern medicine exists and you are otherwise healthy, I find it incredibly unlikely that the flu could kill you unless you had some other medical shortcoming that augmented the problem.

Either way, my argument is somewhat pointless... the bottom line is that, compromised or not, some people get the flu and die.  As I said in my last post, however, those who are compromised should choose to get the shot, which is the same level of protection regardless of whether or not anyone else gets the shot.

Curtis said:

SnowMongoose said:

As someone missing a chunk of his immune system, big thanks to those of you willing to go to a ridiculously small and probably free inconvenience to help yourself and everyone around you.     
Some of the rest of y'all would get along great with my sasquatch hunting sandy hook denying boss.  

(The possibility that some of you fall into both camps is equal parts amusing and terrifying)

In the case of the flu virus, it does nothing for herd immunity because of its ineffectiveness.  If you (with a poopy autoimmune system) get the flu vaccine, it will protect you from the few strains out of the 150 that exist.  For the sake of this discussion I'll name those strains 1, 2, and 3.  So let's say I get the shot, and I still contract flu #4.  You can get it from me because it's #4 and you're not inoculated to that strain.  Now let's say I don't get the shot and I get flu #2.  You likely won't get it from me because you're inoculated to that strain.  Whether or not I get the flu shot has zero impact on your likelihood of getting the flu from me.

 

But what about those that can't get the flu shot? Babies, folks who have serious adverse reactions, GBS? They can get flu #2 from you. How does you getting the flu shot not help? And how is it hurting you to get it? This is where you lose me with your argument. You deal with the public as a theater director, right? What if you're one of the 20-30% who don't show any symptoms? 

You mention risk-reward here. The realistic risk for Curtis of getting the flu shot is that you're out some money, and... well, based on what you said earlier, not much of anything else. The reward is that you're innoculated against those strains, and no one else can catch the strains from you. A very small reward overall, but it could be a lifesaving reward for little to no risk. 

The risk of you not getting the flu shot is similarly very low - you get the flu. And probably nothing happens. But it could be catastrophic. 

Your reasoning to not get it, while well thought out and not ignoring facts, still falls short for me. 

 

Confirming my "wild ass guess" comment by your own CDC

Most of you keep saying it is safe, but noone can show me a long term study because there arent any.  Christ, "we" used to use all kinds of poisens as medicine that were thought to be safe, thats why ALL medicines go through rigorous testing before the FDA allows it to be sold, EXCEPT the flu shot.  Thats all i am saying, you dont know its safe, you dont have any idea what the long term effects of getting an annual flu shot are, and i have not told a yone to not get it, but most of you are telling us we should, based solely on the CDC numbers which, according to a different large government agency are a padded estimate at best.

In reply to Justjim75 :

That link points out in 2001 there were only 18 confirmed flu deaths in the US. That is what I am talking about. Obviously there were more flu deaths, but only 18 were confirmed, so the rest are assumed to be the flu, but not proven. 

That is why I do not put much stake in what the CDC says. They are more about propaganda to push the vaccine than anything else when it comes to flu as far as I can see. 

I do not have any reason to believe the vaccine is unsafe or does harm to most people and would not try to dissuade anyone from getting the shot if they want. 

Mtn you say im in a fantasy world but ive backed up 2 of my claims with data, one from a major govt organization, one from your own source, and others here agree that the 36,000 is misleading.  Is it possible you are letting your life experiences cloud your thought?  While we will always disagree here, at least i have not made any derogatory comments about you or your feelings about this subject.

Justjim75 said:

Most of you keep saying it is safe, but noone can show me a long term study because there arent any.  Christ, "we" used to use all kinds of poisens as medicine that were thought to be safe, thats why ALL medicines go through rigorous testing before the FDA allows it to be sold, EXCEPT the flu shot.

Huh? 

https://www.fda.gov/media/98415/download

https://www.fda.gov/media/98368/download

http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170722045836/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM533569.pdf

http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170722045837/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM533557.pdf

http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170722045839/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM533561.pdf

http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170722045850/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM482682.pdf

http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170722072745/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM360654.pdf

http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170722072716/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM343051.pdf

https://www.fda.gov/media/99610/download

http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170722072741/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM294691.pdf

Justjim75 said:

Mtn you say im in a fantasy world but ive backed up 2 of my claims with data, one from a major govt organization, one from your own source, and others here agree that the 36,000 is misleading.  Is it possible you are letting your life experiences cloud your thought?  While we will always disagree here, at least i have not made any derogatory comments about you or your feelings about this subject.

You have done nothing to back up that it may be dangerous, and while you/others may have showed that the flu shot is not as good as we'd like to believe, no one has showed that it may be dangerous, or that it isn't beneficial to get the flu shot. 

I'm outta the thread, ya'll. Have fun.