Please get a flu vaccine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rideit

Just brought my 10yo kiddo to the Dr, he has the flu. We got shots about three weeks ago.

---

It's a 2 week (give or take) period between when you get the shot and when you are "covered" plus everyone's immune system reacts differently to the vac - some slower, some faster some hardly at all in the case of seniors which is why they have a different vac (high dose).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AustinFromSA

Perhaps it's because the flu itself isn't what kills anybody. It's always secondary/terciary illnesses that do them in. Their body's immune system is working overtime to take care of the virus so it opens the door to something else. You'll always see the headlines say "flu-related" and such. Never the flu itself. Sometimes a person already has an underlying issue. The flu just puts them over the edge like a heart that's already having a tough time.

That's why it's so tough on babies and the elderly. For the vast majority of people who seem fine and healthy, the flu's really not that big of a deal so many just don't bother with the shot. Especially with its abysmal efficacy rates. Always seems that each year the rates are patheticly low. The flu's a tough one to nail I'm sure since it's always "on the move." I'm sure it's like playing whack-a-mole for the vaccine makers.

Now when they come out with an effective catch-all vaccine (or please God, a cold vaccine), then I'd be willing to bet that participation rates would skyrocket.

This is a good read: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...y-kill-people/

---

What you are saying is simply wrong and what you are saying is not what the article says. First of all whether or not the flu virus kills you directly or makes you more susceptible to bacterial pneumonia doesn't matter--dead is dead. If you hadn't got the flu you wouldn't be dead. Second, many flu deaths are directly due to the flu virus and the body's reaction to it, especially the deaths in young healthy people. The common pattern in the 1918 epidemic--sick in the morning, dead by evening, is not consistent with influenza with secondary bacterial infection. Same with the recent 40 y/o marathon runner who recently died in Calif.

I have had several dozen flu shots with absolutely zero adverse reaction. Prior to getting flu shots I had several bouts of classic influenza and I can assure you that it is a big deal. If you think it's no deal is because you had a garden variety cold and thought it was the flu. It is a lot worse than a bad cold. While it was easy to get the shots while I was working, now I go to Kaiser in wait in line with all the little people. Knowing what I know about the flu and having had those pre vaccine episodes, I keep watching on Kaiser's website for the opening of flu clinics and get mine as soon as I can.

Obviously participation would go up if there was a life-long vaccine--for one thing, if you didn't get it one year you'd get it the next so over time vaccination rates would continue to rise. Plus you could get it any time you were at the doctor for something else.

In the meantime the yearly vaccine is the best we have. "Abysmal efficacy" and "pathetically low" are pretty loaded terms, don't you think? Given the high transmissibility of flu every infection prevented case prevents several to many other cases, depending on how many people that case would have exposed himself to. There are two ways to not get the flu--get exposed and having vaccine-induced immunity, or not getting exposed in the first place. If you and every one around you gets the vaccine every year, you may over the course of your life still get the flu once or more, but I guarantee you you will get it less often than you would otherwise and the cases you get will be less severe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AustinFromSA

Perhaps it's because the flu itself isn't what kills anybody. It's always secondary/terciary illnesses that do them in.

---

My wife told me a story last week about some super fit guy who worked out with the flu and he cooked his organs, as he already had a high temp. Organs shut down, he died.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muted

My wife told me a story last week about some super fit guy who worked out with the flu and he cooked his organs, as he already had a high temp. Organs shut down, he died.

---

Young, Seemingly Fit Pennsylvania Man Dies of Flu Complications

FLU KILLS 20-YEAR-OLD WOMAN—HOW COMMON IS IT TO DIE FROM INFLUENZA?

Flu leads to death of 10-year-old boy who was heading to hockey tournament

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

The common pattern in the 1918 epidemic--sick in the morning, dead by evening, is not consistent with influenza with secondary bacterial infection. .

---

I'm confused by what you're saying here. Are you saying those people who died so quickly during the 1918 pandemic didn't succumb to the flu? I thought the issue with that particular outbreak was that it brought on a cytokine storm in its young healthy victims. Yes the cytokine storm is an extreme immune reaction but it was precipitated by the flu virus. Which leads me to another question: where do you draw the line between dying of the flu and dying of complications of the flu?

He's saying that those people died directly as a result of the flu, not because the flu popped up in an already ill person and then they died, which is what Austin was saying. Cause of death: Influenza. 1918 being the modern yardstick for deadly influenza strains.

Actually Austin just basically got Influenza and Pneumonia reversed. Pneumonia often pops up and kills sick people...it's why it has the nickname of "the old man's friend". "Friend", because old folks that are sick and who then get pneumonia generally die peacefully, just drained of life. They tend to go while sleeping.

Which is why there's an ethical debate about pneumonia vaccines, but that's another whole story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KQ

I'm confused by what you're saying here. Are you saying those people who died so quickly during the 1918 pandemic didn't succumb to the flu?

---

I think Old Goat is saying that yes, the predominant pattern from the 1918 epidemic was death directly from the flu. And yes, the hypothesis that high mortality from that strain was mediated by rapid uncontrolled cytokine activation is the most likely one out there.

I think Austin is saying that superinfection (a secondary process like a bacterial pneumonia) in patients who are already suffering from influenza is "always" the culprit, based on the SciAm article he references. Although this is often the cause of flu-related mortality, it is not "always" the case, as in 1918 and with many of the seemingly inexplicable deaths in otherwise healthy young patients. Which is Old Goat's point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iceman

He's saying that those people died directly as a result of the flu, not because the flu popped up in an already ill person and then they died, which is what Austin was saying. Cause of death: Influenza. 1918 being the modern yardstick for deadly influenza strains.

Actually Austin just basically got Influenza and Pneumonia reversed. Pneumonia often pops up and kills sick people...it's why it has the nickname of "the old man's friend". "Friend", because old folks that are sick and who then get pneumonia generally die peacefully, just drained of life. They tend to go while sleeping.

Which is why there's an ethical debate about pneumonia vaccines, but that's another whole story.

---

I'm not aware of any ethical debate about pneumococcal vaccine (pneumovax). The vaccine protects against one particular kind of pneumonia which can affect healthy people of all ages as well as people with weakened immunity such as people who have had their spleens removed. The disease--like most diseases--is particularly dangerous in the elderly which is why we are vaccinated.

The "old man's friend" pneumonia, which is considered a merciful end for debilitated, often demented older people, can be of many different bacteria, including pneumococcus. I suppose there might be an ethical issue about whether to vaccinate an elderly nursing home patient. I don't see much of a debate about it though. First of all, the odds are they were vaccinated years before. If not, if they consent to the vaccine they should have it. It is not up to doctors or family to decide if a competent older person should have their life prolonged. If the person is not competent it is up to the family. I would never permit the vaccine in a demented family member; I hope they would not permit it for me. And if such a person develops pneumonia I would not as a family member authorize antibiotics nor would I want them administered to me. If there's some other ethical issue re the pneumococcal vaccine I'd be interested in hearing about it.

There are interesting issues re compulsory vaccination. The most obvious is of course childhood vaccination. The percentage of vaccinated children in low-vaccination-rate school districts in CA has increased dramatically since vaccination became mandatory. One could make a case that in a particularly severe flu pandemic vaccination would be mandatory for anyone wishing to go out in public. It is well established that public health authorities can quarantine people or confine them to hospitals--TB being the most obvious example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tri-Ungulate

I think Old Goat is saying that yes, the predominant pattern from the 1918 epidemic was death directly from the flu. And yes, the hypothesis that high mortality from that strain was mediated by rapid uncontrolled cytokine activation is the most likely one out there.

I think Austin is saying that superinfection (a secondary process like a bacterial pneumonia) in patients who are already suffering from influenza is "always" the culprit, based on the SciAm article he references. Although this is often the cause of flu-related mortality, it is not "always" the case, as in 1918 and with many of the seemingly inexplicable deaths in otherwise healthy young patients. Which is Old Goat's point.

---

Exactly. It would normally take at least several days for a bacterial superinfection to kill someone with influenza. It can also be hard to tell. The signs and symptoms of a severe viral pneumonia with SIRS (sytemic inflammatory response syndrome with organ failure and shock) can look just like severe bacterial pneumonia. Sputum cultures in someone with viral pneumonia may show pathogens but they're presence in the sputum does not mean they are responsible for the patient's illness.

If we can put a healthy nurse exposed to Ebola in a tent in New Jersey I suppose we could order everyone to have a flu shot. Not something I'm prepared to do unless things got a whole lot worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

I have had several dozen flu shots with absolutely zero adverse reaction. Prior to getting flu shots I had several bouts of classic influenza and I can assure you that it is a big deal. If you think it's no deal is because you had a garden variety cold and thought it was the flu. It is a lot worse than a bad cold.

---

Yes, when you have the flu you know it. It knocks you on your ass big time. There's no confusing it with a cold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The AD

Yes, when you have the flu you know it. It knocks you on your ass big time. There's no confusing it with a cold.

---

And yet people do it all the time.

Hell, people confuse gastroenteritis with influenza all the time.

Most people are, at best, poorly informed, and at worst, just morons.

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

I'm not aware of any ethical debate about pneumococcal vaccine (pneumovax).

---

The debate centers on the fact that the medical establishment often goes to great lengths to keep people alive who have essentially zero quality of life. If they just got pneumonia and died peacefully, some have posited, they would be better off.

Vaccinating for pneumonia prevents this process from occurring, thus the extended lives generate untold revenue for doctors, pharma and hospitals, but to what end? What is gained from the money, time, resources etc. that is preferable to a quiet death? These are some of the questions, I'm not supplying answers. But it's certainly a debate in some circles. In particular, hospital vaccination of already-sick people has been questioned.

There's not a debate about them thta I'm aware of in regards to younger, healthier people.

I recall walking into the ER during my dad's first big brush w pneumonia. He nearly died and there was nothing remotely peaceful about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iceman

He's saying that those people died directly as a result of the flu, not because the flu popped up in an already ill person and then they died, which is what Austin was saying. Cause of death: Influenza. 1918 being the modern yardstick for deadly influenza strains.

Actually Austin just basically got Influenza and Pneumonia reversed. Pneumonia often pops up and kills sick people...it's why it has the nickname of "the old man's friend". "Friend", because old folks that are sick and who then get pneumonia generally die peacefully, just drained of life. They tend to go while sleeping.

Which is why there's an ethical debate about pneumonia vaccines, but that's another whole story.

---

I got that too re: Austin's response.



Food for thought:

Refusing Flu Shots? Maybe You're A 'Denialist'

Washington state has one of the highest "opt out" vaccination rates around. Nice. I got the MMR shot when I was in elementary school when it first came out but I'd already had measles by that time. I also had chicken pox as a child which I understand gives you a life long immunity to the disease unlike the vaccination but I could be wrong on that one.

Fun fact: if you could magically vaccinate 100% of people with flu vaccine each year and the vaccine was only 50% effective, there would be herd immunity and no such thing as flu season.

If that made you go "wat?" then do a little reading on epidemiology (herd immunity is interesting stuff).

If you don't want to read about it, then understand that vaccines that aren't 100% effective prevent a lot more cases than their percent effectiveness would imply because each prevented case also prevents the cases that would have caught it from them.

Or just remember that even if it doesn't stop you from getting the disease, it reduces the severity and length of your suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Fun fact: if you could magically vaccinate 100% of people with flu vaccine each year and the vaccine was only 50% effective, there would be herd immunity and no such thing as flu season.

If that made you go "wat?" then do a little reading on epidemiology (herd immunity is interesting stuff).

If you don't want to read about it, then understand that vaccines that aren't 100% effective prevent a lot more cases than their percent effectiveness (because each prevented case also prevents the cases that would have caught it from them).

Or just remember that even if it doesn't stop you from getting the disease, it reduces the severity and length of your suffering.

---

Attachment 221698

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Fun fact: if you could magically vaccinate 100% of people with flu vaccine each year and the vaccine was only 50% effective, there would be herd immunity and no such thing as flu season.

If that made you go "wat?" then do a little reading on epidemiology (herd immunity is interesting stuff).

If you don't want to read about it, then understand that vaccines that aren't 100% effective prevent a lot more cases than their percent effectiveness would imply because each prevented case also prevents the cases that would have caught it from them.

Or just remember that even if it doesn't stop you from getting the disease, it reduces the severity and length of your suffering.

---

Stop it with your common sense and facts, emotions are all that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

herd immunity is interesting stuff.

---

From the above article:

The US has a vaccination rate worse than Mexico


Maybe they should be happy Trump wants to build a wall

OK, so I ran it on the Reed Frost model SIRS episim:

If you could vaccinate 100% of people with a 25% effective flu vaccine, you might prevent up to 75% of flu cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pegleg

I wonder how many of the folks saying they won't get a flu shot because it's only 10-30% effective (estimates vary this year), also use an avalanche beacon and/or airbag every time they go into the BC? Those devices also have low effectiveness rates, but the reasoning is that if they might save your bacon then you use them even though they're not guaranteed effective. Same logic with the flu shot, but even more so - it's cheap or free and has minimal side effects so the marginal cost of it is very low, making it worthwhile even if it has a low effectiveness rate (not to mention that even if it's not effective in preventing your flu, it may make it milder or shorten the duration).

Seems like a pretty simple risk-reward analysis to me. If I can pay very little, with very little risk of negative effects, in order to have a 10-30% better chance of avoiding the flu, I'll take it.

---

“Condoms are for sailors”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldLarry

“Condoms are for sailors”

---

Only sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Or just remember that even if it doesn't stop you from getting the disease, it reduces the severity and length of your suffering.

---

i've always been curious how this works. anybody have good description/citation?

i'm a strong proponent of flu vax. the few years i have not gotten it (various weak excuses), i've always gone through a pretty rough sickness with symptoms that meet my understanding of the flu.

also, isn't effectiveness of the vax measured from diagnostics of a subset of hospital patients with symptoms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skidog

Once again. fuck flu shots and fuck big pharma.

Sent from my XT1650 using TGR Forums mobile app

---

I like big pharma, they keep me alive.

I'll pass. Last time I got the the flu shot was about 25 years ago. Just happened to be the year I got the worst flu I've had.

If you want to inject garbage into yourself for something that rarely works and often causes sickness its self help yourself.

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/sm...get-flu-shots/

http://www.familyhealthchiropractic....-get-flu-shot/

Wow .... the paradox has spoken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iceman

The debate centers on the fact that the medical establishment often goes to great lengths to keep people alive who have essentially zero quality of life. If they just got pneumonia and died peacefully, some have posited, they would be better off.

Vaccinating for pneumonia prevents this process from occurring, thus the extended lives generate untold revenue for doctors, pharma and hospitals, but to what end? What is gained from the money, time, resources etc. that is preferable to a quiet death? These are some of the questions, I'm not supplying answers. But it's certainly a debate in some circles. In particular, hospital vaccination of already-sick people has been questioned.

There's not a debate about them thta I'm aware of in regards to younger, healthier people.

---

Pneumovax is recommended for healthy adults at age 65. Most 65 year olds would say that their quality of life is good enough to keep going for quite a while. Pneumococcal pneumonia kills people with a good quality of life. For debilitated patients with poor quality of life there are plenty of other bugs to give them pneumonia. The issue isn't about vaccination--I've never seen an elderly sick patient in a hospital get a pneumonia shot; maybe it happens in nursing homes. The issue is whether to treat with antibiotics. In any case, how much money to spend on a particular disease or patient is not a decision for the providers caring for that patient. It is a decision for that patient or his/her surrogate. Or it is a decision for society as a whole--ie government regulation. I don't think Americans will tolerate being told that grandma who hasn't recognized any family or spoken an intelligible word in years can't have dialysis because she's not worth the money. But maybe it needs to come to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

i've always been curious how this works. anybody have good description/citation?

i'm a strong proponent of flu vax. the few years i have not gotten it (various weak excuses), i've always gone through a pretty rough sickness with symptoms that meet my understanding of the flu.

also, isn't effectiveness of the vax measured from diagnostics of a subset of hospital patients with symptoms?

---

Here's an analogy--nuclear fission. In a nuclear reactor you push in the control rods enough so that although there are still atoms being split, there aren't enough particles flying around to sustain a reaction. The flu vaccine is like control rods--even with a partly effective vaccine there aren't enough infected patients encountering vulnerable people to sustain a pandemic.
If you don't know enough about nuclear fission to understand the analogy this is probably not a good time to start reading about it.