• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Is promoting flu shots actually helping Anti-Vaccine movement?(No)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alavard

Member
Also I only suggested that the flu shot is maybe not the thing to promote because it only weakens the argument for vaccinations in general.

So what are you actually proposing? You keep saying we 'shouldn't promote the flu shot'. What does that actually mean? What change are you actually talking about making?

If you've got more effective ways to adjust the message so that more people get vaccinated and more people don't get sick, by all means. Don't keep us in suspense.
 

slit

Member
This exactly this echo chamber mentality people are talking about. If I never seen this it does not exist and if I don't want to know about it it also does not exist.

I made a topic about an anti scientific movement which may use a pretty unreliable vaccination as an argument for a general vaccination critic and you honestly now expect scientific research about a community which you already have no interest in.

Also I only suggested that the flu shot is maybe not the thing to promote because it only weakens the argument for vaccinations in general. In most western countries flu shots are not even recommended for the general public and millions do not die like the hyperbole in this topic suggests.

This black or white is really getting out of hand.

It doesn't weaken the argument, you're saying we should not promote something that is useful because if it isn't 100% effective the optics look bad to people who don't understand simple statistics. It doesn't weaken the argument it just makes them ignorant and you don't stop promoting something beneficial based on the asinine belief that people will smarten up because of that. It doesn't work that way.
 
Nah man, don't waste your time, what if it doesn't work? Then you're gonna feel stupid for getting it.

Try getting them earlier, like around October, when the flu season typically starts. Check and see if your workplace offers them for free for future reference.

I'll keep that in mind for next year! I'd much rather pay the flu shot than the cost of the medication + doctor visit + xray for possible bronchitis and the flu itself lol
 
This exactly this echo chamber mentality people are talking about. If I never seen this it does not exist and if I don't want to know about it it also does not exist.

I made a topic about an anti scientific movement which may use a pretty unreliable vaccination as an argument for a general vaccination critic and you honestly now expect scientific research about a community which you already have no interest in.

Also I only suggested that the flu shot is maybe not the thing to promote because it only weakens the argument for vaccinations in general. In most western countries flu shots are not even recommended for the general public and millions do not die like the hyperbole in this topic suggests.

This black or white is really getting out of hand.

This is only a problem for people who do not understand how herd immunity works. The vaccine does not need to be 100% effective for a single person in order to be effective for the group.
 
Dear lord the flu shot fucking saves lives. Just because it isn't 100% effective does not mean we should stop promoting something that literally saves lives because of idiots who don't understand.

As someone who just starting out training as a physician, the amount of misinformation causing people to refuse flu shots is staggering.
 
So what are you actually proposing? You keep saying we 'shouldn't promote the flu shot'. What does that actually mean? What change are you actually talking about making?

If you've got more effective ways to adjust the message so that more people get vaccinated and more people don't get sick, by all means. Don't keep us in suspense.
I think the point is that if people get the flu vaccine without being asked to and it doesn't work, they'll still get other vaccines. If you tell them to remember to get their flu shot and it doesn't work, they'll become antivaxxers.
 

A Fish Aficionado

I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
when did anti-vaxxing become a thing?

Like, I'm distrustful of the government, but I doubt they're trying to give me autism or AIDS

Andrew Wakefield published a fake study about vaccines and autism.
He lost his medical license and now enjoys a comfy life talking about his flawed study in the US.
 

Trokil

Banned
So what are you actually proposing? You keep saying we 'shouldn't promote the flu shot'. What does that actually mean? What change are you actually talking about making?

Well, most western countries don't promote it to the general public because of several reasons, but doctors recommend it to their patients, if they think it would help that person. Also you can get the shot, if you think it will help you, like a lot of teachers do and if you are working in healthcare you will get it anyway. So pretty much the same result without the drama and the discussion with the anti-vaccination people is also reduced to the smallpox and other vaccinations, which is a lot harder for them to argue against.
 

slit

Member
Well, most western countries don't promote it to the general public because of several reasons, but doctors recommend it to their patients, if they think it would help that person. Also you can get the shot, if you think it will help you, like a lot of teachers do and if you are working in healthcare you will get it anyway. So pretty much the same result without the drama and the discussion with the anti-vaccination people is also reduced to the smallpox and other vaccinations, which is a lot harder for them to argue against.

Except there is a strong anti-vaxer sentiment in Europe too so there goes your theory.
 

Trokil

Banned
Andrew Wakefield published a fake study about vaccines and autism.
He lost his medical license and now enjoys a comfy life talking about his flawed study in the US.

It is too easy if you are reducing it to that, there is also the sentiment that medicine has made people weaker and people are sicker today. Which for example in the US is also an effect of the many drug commercials. So a lot of people believe, if you got sick your body would get stronger and you would need less medicine, so vaccinations are making people weaker as well.

If you reduce it to one person you will ignore all the other parts which has lead to creating this movement. For example the WHO and their swine flu vaccination did not help either.
 

Breads

Banned
Ok, I don't know if you are joking or not, but two things:

- there is zero evidence that GMOs are harmful.

- other people being more sick than you means exactly NOTHING.

It's a joke. The last second jab at GMOs is because the OP is vocally anti-GMO in a noteworthy and entertaining way.
 
It is too easy if you are reducing it to that, there is also the sentiment that medicine has made people weaker and people are sicker today. Which for example in the US is also an effect of the many drug commercials. So a lot of people believe, if you got sick your body would get stronger and you would need less medicine, so vaccinations are making people weaker as well.

If you reduce it to one person you will ignore all the other parts which has lead to creating this movement. For example the WHO and their swine flu vaccination did not help either.

Please don't talk to anyone you know in real life about vaccines. You will actively put them in danger.
 

A Fish Aficionado

I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
It is too easy if you are reducing it to that, there is also the sentiment that medicine has made people weaker and people are sicker today. Which for example in the US is also an effect of the many drug commercials. So a lot of people believe, if you got sick your body would get stronger and you would need less medicine, so vaccinations are making people weaker as well.

If you reduce it to one person you will ignore all the other parts which has lead to creating this movement. For example the WHO and their swine flu vaccination did not help either.

You are delusional. The WHO/CDC worked very efficiently during the swine flu epidemic. There are still ongoing epidemics of the swine flu and causes hundreds of deaths each year.
GuMVy2O.png
 
D

Deleted member 20920

Unconfirmed Member
Please don't talk to anyone you know in real life about vaccines. You will actively put them in danger.

I usually don't like to point such things out but I seem to recall that the OP is a science teacher? Or at least a teacher.
 

Breads

Banned
This thread is a flat circle and the OP will keep being wrong over and over and over again.

The reality is that they are severely anti-business. If money can be made on something that is beneficial to humanity they maintain it being highly suspect and will keep trying to justify their views until this fact finally comes out.

Which, according to quotes from them above me, it already has.

We will be accused of shutting "the conversation" down though, if again, they haven't already.
 
It is too easy if you are reducing it to that, there is also the sentiment that medicine has made people weaker and people are sicker today. Which for example in the US is also an effect of the many drug commercials. So a lot of people believe, if you got sick your body would get stronger and you would need less medicine, so vaccinations are making people weaker as well.

If you reduce it to one person you will ignore all the other parts which has lead to creating this movement. For example the WHO and their swine flu vaccination did not help either.


tumblr_nkwraqD9RH1r6o3cjo1_500.gif
 

Trokil

Banned
You are delusional. The WHO/CDC worked very efficiently during the swine flu epidemic. There are still ongoing epidemics of the swine flu and causes hundreds of deaths each year.

There was an international panel criticizing the WHO about the swine flu

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/health/policy/11flu.html

And even the WHO did internal reviews because of how the situation was handled. It is not like they are big demons, they just screwed up enough to let people start rumors and helped to create part of the anti-vaccination movement. This is not secret information.
 

SkyOdin

Member
It is too easy if you are reducing it to that, there is also the sentiment that medicine has made people weaker and people are sicker today. Which for example in the US is also an effect of the many drug commercials. So a lot of people believe, if you got sick your body would get stronger and you would need less medicine, so vaccinations are making people weaker as well.

If you reduce it to one person you will ignore all the other parts which has lead to creating this movement. For example the WHO and their swine flu vaccination did not help either.
That sentiment that people these days are weaker and sicker than people in some idyllic earlier era is sheer bullshit. People these days live longer, healthier lives and are not at the mercy of being killed or crippled by some horrible illness as they were in earlier times. Whoever possesses that sentiment you are talking about has already rejected all logic and reason in order to come to that conclusion.
 

A Fish Aficionado

I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
There was an international panel criticizing the WHO about the swine flu

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/health/policy/11flu.html

And even the who did internal reviews because of how the situation was handled. It is not like they are big demons, they just screwed up enough to let people start rumors and helped to create part of the anti-vaccination movement. This is not secret information.

Although millions of doses of vaccine ultimately went unused, the panel found “no evidence of malfeasance.”
.
 

SkyOdin

Member
This is really incredible, I tried to explain why people think this and you guys really try to turn this into, I said this?
Your purpose of this entire thread is: advertise the flu vaccine less (ensuring that fewer people get it). That immediately raises some red flags.

You haven't even proven that your suspicion about how people react to flu vaccines is based in reality.
 
Do people really not understand statistics at any level? Just because its not 100% isnt a reason to not take it. If it doesnt work who cares, what did you lose except a bit of time. If it works it saves you from the flu !!!!

Analogy time. Man if i throw to that reciever he has a 60 percent chance of catching and 40 for dropping it. You know what i will just stand here and let get sacked dont wanna to risk a dropped pass lol.
 

WedgeX

Banned
If everyone got the flu vaccine and it caught nearly all flu viruses...the amount of flu would decrease because it wouldn't be able to evolve so frequently.
 

Beefy

Member
Promoting flu shots is a good thing. It means when H5N1 finally breaks out of China, people will want a jab easier. My dad works for a pharmaceutical company and they have meetings every 4 months about it.
Vaxxing and treatment is helping atm, but China is covering it up .

Also on a lighter note it means people like me don't get flu every year.
 

Trokil

Banned
Your purpose of this entire thread is: advertise the flu vaccine less (ensuring that fewer people get it). That immediately raises some red flags.

You haven't even proven that your suspicion about how people react to flu vaccines is based in reality.

Well, it could be based on the idea, that even within the liberal and pro science press there are enough articles criticizing flu shots to fill several books. There are even articles on the Huffington post about that.

So if one person can create a whole anti-vaccination movement with one article nobody else pretty much backed up (according to this thread this is the only reason), you want to explain to me that all the articles on Flu vaccination and people on television like Bill Maher criticizing flu shots have no impact at all and this is all made up.
 

Chmpocalypse

Blizzard
People, look at the OP - a person who argues against verified science regarding the safety of GMO foods (hint: he sides with the loonies).

Don't fall for this shit.
 
I think a 1 in 10 to 6 in 10 chance of not getting the flu is worth getting a flu shot every year. I also have what is called a "vaccine reaction" to getting the flu shot. Better mildly sick for a day than getting the flu. Having the flu is miserable, and more potentially lethal the older I get.
 
I think a 1 in 10 to 6 in 10 chance of not getting the flu is worth getting a flu shot every year. I also have what is called a "vaccine reaction" to getting the flu shot. Better mildly sick for a day than getting the flu. Having the flu is miserable, and more potentially lethal the older I get.
But this allows nuts to add to their list of arguments that aren't based in reality. Is it worth it?
 
In case you're actually curious OP:

For a given disease, you have a number R. R is the number of people that a single infected person will infect. If R > 1, then each infected individual will infect more than one person and the disease will spread within a population. If R < 1 then it takes many infected individuals to infect another person, and the disease will die out.

R can be expressed mathematically.

R &#8733; d*c*s

This is math-speak, and basically says that R is proportional to (&#8733;) three variables which we can modify: d, c, and s.

'd' = Amount of time a person is infectious, measured in [days]

'c' = Number of people encountered each day, measured in [contacts/day]

's' = Fraction of the contacts who are Susceptible to the disease (a number between 0 and 1)

A major goal of epidemic control is to reduce R to a value less than one by manipulating these three variables. Again, if R < 1, then the disease will eventually die out.

I will note here that there are other factors which contribute to R. These correspond to various properties of the pathogen. For instance, if a disease is airborne, like measles, R will be extremely high (R > 10). If a disease is transmitted by fluid contact, like Ebola, R will be much lower (R == about 2). That said, these methods work the same regardless of what pathogen you're talking about:

You can make 'd' smaller by treating the disease early in its course.

You can make 'n' smaller by setting up a quarantine, or telling infected people to stay home from work and school. 'n' also gets smaller if enough people start dying out.

's' gets smaller in one of two ways. (1) people become immune to the disease (e.g., they get the virus and they recover; this is why epidemics burn out) or (2) they are vaccinated.

That is herd immunity, explained in the most basic way. A vaccine does not need to be 100% effective in order to work. It need only be effective enough to reduce R to a value less than 1.0.
 
Well, it could be based on the idea, that even within the liberal and pro science press there are enough articles criticizing flu shots to fill several books. There are even articles on the Huffington post about that.

So if one person can create a whole anti-vaccination movement with one article nobody else pretty much backed up (according to this thread this is the only reason), you want to explain to me that all the articles on Flu vaccination and people on television like Bill Maher criticizing flu shots have no impact at all and this is all made up.

I have no idea what you're going on about. Anti-vaxxers don't need to be treated with kid gloves. They deserve any and all ridicule.
 

Trokil

Banned
That is herd immunity, explained in the most basic way. A vaccine does not need to be 100% effective in order to work. It need only be effective enough to reduce R to a value less than 1.0.

That is a nice simplification and does not really cover the flu and flu shots. That is why you can get 10-20 % effectiveness, because with the flu the system is a lot more complex and because of international travel and chance there can be several strains in one year and it is still a guess which one will be most dominant.

That is also why unlike with smallpox even the WHO does recommend the flu shot to groups with higher risks because the herd immunity with the flu is almost not achievable unlike with smallpox or measles. That is why usually with the flu the risk groups get the shot not everybody because it is very unreliable.
 
That is a nice simplification and does not really cover the flu and flue shots. That is why you can get 10-20 % effectiveness, because with the flu the system is a lot more complex and because of international travel and chance there can be several strains in one year and it is still a guess which one will be most dominant.

That is also why unlike with smallpox even the WHO does recommend the flu shot to groups with higher risks because the herd immunity with the flu is almost not achievable unlike with smallpox or measles. That is why usually with the flu the risk groups get the shot not everybody because it is very unreliable.

Please stop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom