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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh great, another conspiracy thread. Every other conspiracy is laughed out but for some reason, vaccines which actually affects lives, is the one so many people cling to because nobody taught them how vaccines and the flu virus works.
 
Zackat said:
In my public speaking class in college, we had debates at the end of the year. The class voted on topics that they felt were controversial and should be debated. This was at the height of the anti-vaxxer movement, so naturally it was chosen.

I am pro-science, so imagine my dread when I drew the short straw and had to advocate for anti-vaccination in our debate. It was absolutely impossible. I spent hours and hours researching and I found not one shred of evidence. I wanted to find the evidence because I wanted to win. Basically I had to get up there and handwave about big bad pharmaceutical companies for the entire debate.

What a waste of my life that was.

It made me respect Republicans and their spin machine a little bit though. I dunno how they do it.
Click to expand...

Kurita said:
3Sbc4Iq.jpg
Click to expand...
.
 
Trokil said:
Why do you want to promote that? In a good year it still is closer to a coin toss. It only weakens the argument for the real discussion.
Click to expand...

Has anyone explained to OP that "50% effective" does not mean a "coin toss" yet?

If a flu shot is 50% effective, it means you're half as likely to contract it if you're vaccinated, or twice as unlikely. So if your odds of contracting the flu are normally, say, 1 in 10, then if you're vaccinated in a year with 50% effectiveness it's 1 in 20.
 
Joe Shlabotnik said:
Has anyone explained to OP that "50% effective" does not mean a "coin toss" yet?

If a flu shot is 50% effective, it means you're half as likely to contract it if you're vaccinated, or twice as unlikely. So if your odds of contracting the flu are normally, say, 1 in 10, then if you're vaccinated in a year with 50% effectiveness it's 1 in 20.
Click to expand...
Meh, math is for the birds!
 
Joe Shlabotnik said:
Has anyone explained to OP that "50% effective" does not mean a "coin toss" yet?

If a flu shot is 50% effective, it means you're half as likely to contract it if you're vaccinated, or twice as unlikely. So if your odds of contracting the flu are normally, say, 1 in 10, then if you're vaccinated in a year with 50% effectiveness it's 1 in 20.
Click to expand...

Way to contribute to the anti-vaxxer movement why bother vaxxing at all if it's 1d20?

yolo.gif
 
Joe Shlabotnik said:
Has anyone explained to OP that "50% effective" does not mean a "coin toss" yet?

If a flu shot is 50% effective, it means you're half as likely to contract it if you're vaccinated, or twice as unlikely. So if your odds of contracting the flu are normally, say, 1 in 10, then if you're vaccinated in a year with 50% effectiveness it's 1 in 20.
Click to expand...

The insane part of it is even if it was only X% effective in the most simple way it would still be a no-brainer. So even by stupid-think it's still obvious.
 
Joe Shlabotnik said:
Has anyone explained to OP that "50% effective" does not mean a "coin toss" yet?

If a flu shot is 50% effective, it means you're half as likely to contract it if you're vaccinated, or twice as unlikely. So if your odds of contracting the flu are normally, say, 1 in 10, then if you're vaccinated in a year with 50% effectiveness it's 1 in 20.
Click to expand...

It's not just that. When you look at the people you interact with, let's just call them spheres of influence, if people are vaccinated your chance of getting the flu drops significantly as you go out of your social sphere. A group of people vaccinated 5 levels out of your social interaction doesn't infect the person 4 levels from you, doesn't infect the person 3 levels from you, doesn't infect the person 2 levels from you, and then doesn't infect the person 1 level from you that passes on the virus to you.

The virus is suffocated from spreading.

That's literally herd immunity. We just got lucky that some of the viruses were easy to eradicate. The basis of herd immunity isn't at eradication, which would be the optimum result in a perfect world, but cutting off the ability of the virus to spread.
 
Joe Shlabotnik said:
Has anyone explained to OP that "50% effective" does not mean a "coin toss" yet?

If a flu shot is 50% effective, it means you're half as likely to contract it if you're vaccinated, or twice as unlikely. So if your odds of contracting the flu are normally, say, 1 in 10, then if you're vaccinated in a year with 50% effectiveness it's 1 in 20.
Click to expand...
No no, OP gets you, he's just concerned for other people who may not know that. That's it.

We can solve this problem by not advocating flu shots.
 
DontBeThatGuy said:
has the internet helped create a dumber society, or is it simply helping dumb ideas become more dangerous?
Click to expand...

I'd say the echo chamber effect has weaponized stupid. They are no longer isolated and ignored. I remember thinking in the early 90's that the internet would radically transform the intellect of society to bring it in line with biological potential in a couple of generations. Yeah about that...

I bet people felt the same way about radio and TV way back. Sadly it seems the more potential for learning built into a format, the less a large segment of people seem to draw from it.
 
I take all vaccinations that are deemed necessary by the EU/German doctors' association, which gives recommendations to doctors on what vaccinations to give. The flu shot isn't deemed necessary or recommended, so I see no need for that. The flu rates in Germany aren't higher or lower than in countries where everyone is recommended to take the flu vaccine instead of just certain groups. So I agree that it's detrimental to the cause when mixing really important vaccinations with flu vaccination recommendations.

In general, it would be best if those vaccination critics just listened to their doctors too and didn't believe in some conspiracy.
 
Messofanego said:
Oh great, another conspiracy thread. Every other conspiracy is laughed out but for some reason, vaccines which actually affects lives, is the one so many people cling to because nobody taught them how vaccines and the flu virus works.
Click to expand...

OP is a nut a you shouldn't even bother. Some people will reject facts that contradict their beliefs. These people are not worth your time. Find someone who is actually open minded instead.
 
I've never understood why people who are otherwise for vaccines are anti flu vaccine. It's weird - you have less of a chance of getting the flu than if you didn't take it (and that chance varies a bit from year to year), but you're still coming out ahead by getting it, and helping reduce the spread.

I mean, people die every year from the flu. There are unnecessary hospitalizations that could be cut back on by taking the flu vaccine.

Insanely, even my wife is on the 'it's not necessary' side. Sure, the chances of us catching the flu and contracting a serious side effect aren't great. But when you can reduce that chance with basically no downside, I don't know why you wouldn't take it (and it's completely free here too).
 
Flo_Evans said:
I believe in science. The problem is not the science it's that people don't understand it.

Sure I'll read your sources, what about my crazy aunt though?

You don't even understand I'm not against vaccines but how they are marketed to the public, this is the root of the problem, scientists are generally not great at communicating with the layman. It is very hard, when trying to reach 100% of the population to communicate a complex idea. One approach will certainly not be able to reach everybody.
Click to expand...

I'd agree, if we weren't taking about peoples lives here. Tens of thousands of people die every year because of the flu and complications therein. The solution is better communication, not giving up.
 
Flo_Evans said:
I believe in science. The problem is not the science it's that people don't understand it.

Sure I'll read your sources, what about my crazy aunt though?

You don't even understand I'm not against vaccines but how they are marketed to the public, this is the root of the problem, scientists are generally not great at communicating with the layman. It is very hard, when trying to reach 100% of the population to communicate a complex idea. One approach will certainly not be able to reach everybody.
Click to expand...

Are you saying because of your "crazy aunt" we shouldn't promote something that saves lives? Do you know stupid and insane that in itself sounds? I don't want your crazy aunt dictating what the medical community should be promoting.
 
General public don't usually get the Flu vaccine in the UK so I always wonder why there is this hysteria in the US about getting it or not.
 
I used to not get the flushot, not because i was against it but because they were really expensive. ACA reduced even the non-insured shots so I've gotten it for the past 3 years. 3 years I haven't been confined to a bed for a week and coughing up my organs and feeling like I'm about to do.

As with any other stuff like this, a lot of it is herd immunity/protection. The more of us that get shots, the more we protect people that can't get them or the shot doesn't work for them.
 
I don't get the flu shot because it's not offered for free. If it was, I'd definitely do it. In the UK it's only offered to "at risk" people.

Also fuck all injections. Can't stand them, I pass out every time.

I've been wondering recently whether people trying to fight anti-science bullshit should just use their tactics. Fight fire with fire. I got the MMR jab as a child and now I have a PhD. MMR immunisation is therefore positively associated with intellectual achievement. I eat almost exclusively GMOs too, maybe that's why I did good in school.
 
Moral Panic said:
General public don't usually get the Flu vaccine in the UK so I always wonder why there is this hysteria in the US about getting it or not.
Click to expand...

Europe has a weird relation to the flu shot. It isn't liked because it requires financing a logistics every year to vaccinate, unlike the eradicated viruses that usually only needed to be treated once in a person's lifetime. They'd rather let the virus spread and are taking the chance that inoculating the person at risk and likely to interact with them will be enough. The World Health Organization recommends an annual vaccine.
 
Shiggy said:
I take all vaccinations that are deemed necessary by the EU/German doctors' association, which gives recommendations to doctors on what vaccinations to give. The flu shot isn't deemed necessary or recommended, so I see no need for that. The flu rates in Germany aren't higher or lower than in countries where everyone is recommended to take the flu vaccine instead of just certain groups. So I agree that it's detrimental to the cause when mixing really important vaccinations with flu vaccination recommendations.

In general, it would be best if those vaccination critics just listened to their doctors too and didn't believe in some conspiracy.
Click to expand...

But the flu vaccine is just as important... Just because it's not 'required' doesn't make it any less so.

HPV vaccine is also not 'required' at this time, but it literally prevents cervical cancer. It's not like magical powers are bestowed upon it just by being required.

Mandatory vaccines are as much politics as they are science. The flu vaccine was actually mandatory for a while here in NY until a judge struck it down, but I suspect it will be mandatory again in the future. The HPV vaccine will also be mandatory, many states have bills in the works to make it so, once people get over the sitgmata associate with giving their child a vaccine for an STD
 
I'm not a stupid anti vaxxer but I never a yearly flu shot. Knock on wood but I'm generally fairly healthy and if I do get ill its usually during the summer for whatever reason.
 
Trojita said:
Europe has a weird relation to the flu shot. It isn't liked because it requires financing a logistics every year to vaccinate, unlike the eradicated viruses that usually only needed to be treated once in a person's lifetime. They'd rather let the virus spread and are taking the chance that inoculating the person at risk and likely to interact with them will be enough. The World Health Organization recommends an annual vaccine.
Click to expand...

WHO recommendations are largely in line with the ECDC guidelines though: Give precedence to risk groups and those affliated with them
http://www.who.int/influenza/vaccines/use/en/ vs http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopi...luenza_vaccination.aspx#vaccinationstrategies
 
BassForever said:
I'm not a stupid anti vaxxer but I never a yearly flu shot. Knock on wood but I'm generally fairly healthy and if I do get ill its usually during the summer for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

The thing about this line of thought is it only works as long as you aren't ever around other people that the flu can successfully attack. Otherwise you can feel just fine but you literally bring the virus to them..
 
I am in my 30s and got pneumonia battling a flu last year. It hit me before I would normally get my shot in November. Pneumonia kills people. Scary stuff. Just get the shot for you and those around you.
 
Get my fly shot yearly, waiting for that Norovirus shot and then all will be right in the world (hopefully a couple more years) We can live in peace. Well at least I could.
 
Jesus fucking christ i cannot take all this stupidity. Take your damn vaccines. Stop trying to make people not take them. Your argument is as terrible as saying people should stop practising safe sex because condoms fail sometimes.
 
Probably been posted, but it's because of herd immunity OP.

image-01-large.jpg


Even if everyone has a 50% chance of not getting it, you will see exponentially less propagation and thus less virus evolution in a season.
 
Joni said:
WHO recommendations are largely in line with the ECDC guidelines though: Give precedence to risk groups and those affliated with them
http://www.who.int/influenza/vaccines/use/en/ vs http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopi...luenza_vaccination.aspx#vaccinationstrategies
Click to expand...
Interestingly, the NHS is expanding flu shot recommendations to healthy pre-school kids, who are not considered an "at-risk*" population.

Definitely the majority of the protection benefits are going to go to those "at risk groups and those affliated with them," as you mentioned. If you live in a rural area and don't regularly interact with people considered "at-risk," then it's likely not cost-effective to get one. The last cost-effectiveness analysis I saw on the flu shot determined that it was not cost-effective for the general population.

*European CDC defines "at-risk" as the elderly and people with chronic medical conditions. Pretty vague.
 
hockeypuck said:
Interestingly, the NHS is expanding flu shot recommendations to healthy pre-school kids, who are not considered an "at-risk*" population.

Definitely the majority of the protection benefits are going to go to those "at risk groups and those affliated with them," as you mentioned. If you live in a rural area and don't regularly interact with people considered "at-risk," then it's likely not cost-effective to get one. The last cost-effectiveness analysis I saw on the flu shot determined that it was not cost-effective for the general population.

*European CDC defines "at-risk" as the elderly and people with chronic medical conditions. Pretty vague.
Click to expand...

Most European countries do tend to include children 12 or younger due to their typical behavior and the tendency for school to act as an incubator for the flu. Flu epidemics even tend to 'shut down' during school vacations. Pre-school recommendation of NHS seems in line with the WHO recommendation of 6-59 months, as pre-school is up to 5 years in the UK if Wiki is right.
 
Kurdel said:
Probably been posted, but it's because of herd immunity OP.

image-01-large.jpg


Even if everyone has a 50% chance of not getting it, you will see exponentially less propagation and thus less virus evolution in a season.
Click to expand...
They have some dank ass herd immunity diagrams out there. I wonder why they aren't used more in pamphlets and TV ads?

Like just one of those arrow diagrams would make a good poster in a middle school.
 
I've never gotten a flu shot and I don't see myself starting. If I were in a risk group then maybe I would.

I'm not anti-vaccine I just hate getting immunisations.
 
How's this even a thing? How have we reached the point where getting a vaccine can be seen as a bad thing? Do people have any idea what a pandemic is and how vaccines can effectively stop them from originating?

I just don't get it
 
Llyranor said:
Consider this: the flu pandemic of 1918 killed more people than all of WW1.
Click to expand...

eot said:
I've never gotten a flu shot and I don't see myself starting. If I were in a risk group then maybe I would.

I'm not anti-vaccine I just hate getting immunisations.
Click to expand...
Interesting having these posts one after another. Like many, I assumed the great epidemic of 1918 just killed millions because medical care was so poor. Turns out it particularly killed millions of what we think of as the low risk groups. It specifically wasn't just the elderly and children who died. Different strains have different impacts.

"Most influenza outbreaks disproportionately kill juvenile, elderly, or already weakened patients; in contrast, the 1918 pandemic predominantly killed previously healthy young adults.

There are several possible explanations for the high mortality of the 1918 influenza pandemic. Some research suggests that the specific variant of the virus had an unusual aggressive nature. One group of researchers recovered the original virus from the bodies of frozen victims, and found that transfection in animals caused a rapid progressive respiratory failure and death through a cytokine storm (overreaction of the body's immune system). It was then postulated that the strong immune reactions of young adults ravaged the body, whereas the weaker immune systems of children and middle-aged adults resulted in fewer deaths among those groups"
 
eot said:
I've never gotten a flu shot and I don't see myself starting. If I were in a risk group then maybe I would.

I'm not anti-vaccine I just hate getting immunisations.
Click to expand...

Getting the shot is trivial. Not to be cold, but I believe that you are more than capable of getting a painless shot without any hassle.

The issue is that you still could transmit the flu to people, or to people who know people who can get really sick or die. It's the right thing to do.
 
grumble said:
Getting the shot is trivial. Not to be cold, but I believe that you are more than capable of getting a painless shot without any hassle.

The issue is that you still could transmit the flu to people, or to people who know people who can get really sick or die. It's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Eh, it's more that I get super anxious doing it.

Anyway, if I actually had people around me getting the flu, or got it myself then I'd probably be more prone to take the shot, but it's just not something I think about. I've never thought to myself "it's almost flu season" because it seems like a rare thing to get. Like, maybe you get it once every 15 years. Rationally it might still make sense to get the shot, I'm just saying why it doesn't really enter my mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

VR and alternative options for movement
0
498
The Infectious Paradox replied
Wow, I'm Actually Hallucinating....
49
3K
AJUMP23 replied
I have trouble seeing Starship Troopers as an anti-fascist film?
2
82
3K
StueyDuck replied
So the tesla fireworks explosion is actually metal gear solid 6 ?! GET ITT KOJIMA
News Drama 
5
1K
Kacho replied
What actually happened to Warren Ellis?
14
4K
CGNoire replied
Top Bottom