Back to TheU.ca
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Banned Users List
Usergroups
RSS Feeds
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log inTheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Flu shots - Reply to topic
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
|
Lock
Russia's greatest love machine  Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 752 Location: The wrong place    votes: 6 View user's profile |
I'd tell them they didn't get it from the vaccine. |
|
Nice logical fallacy there chief. Nobody can get sick from a vaccine because anytime the vaccine clearly causes a problem, it automatically didn't come from the vaccine. |
|
Lock
Russia's greatest love machine Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 752 Location: The wrong place votes: 6 View user's profile |
aspie jew stereotype wrote: Nice logical fallacy there chief.
Nobody can get sick from a vaccine because anytime the vaccine clearly causes a problem, it automatically didn't come from the vaccine. That's ridiculous. Of course vaccines can cause illnesses. But when only one person gets something, it's very unlikely it was caused by the vaccine. |
|
But not impossible. And thats the whole thing, if it's possible to get sick from a vaccine, why take it? Nobody seems to acknoweldge this point |
|
OK, first, noone is going to change anyone else's opinion here. Second, this isn't a choice between risk and not risk. It's a choice between the (acknowledged) risk of the vaccine and the (known) risk of the disease. Certainly, the undesired outcomes of vaccination are tragic. I have one friend whose child was permanently injured by a bad reaction to an immunization. This has to be balanced against the number of people killed or injured by the disease. It's easy to point to a case where someone has been injured by a vaccine and say immunization was a bad idea for that person. If you're going to do that, though, you also have to consider the number of unimmunised people who suffer injury or death from the disease. What about their lost years? What about their families? Logic, though, doesn't really enter into this. It's about the perception of control over risk. People are more willing to take a risk if they think they are in control of it. Everyone knows that, per passenger mile, more people die in cars than in airplanes. But they feel more in control of the car, so they minimise the risk. It's well known that UV radiation causes skin cancer, but people still go to tanning salons. Even when they understand that a tan is the body's response to DNA damage, they are happy to risk melanoma because they feel in control. |
|
Senther
Xtalk Drifter  Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 2296 Location: The Deadlights  votes: 42 View user's profile |
aspie jew stereotype wrote: if it's possible to get sick from a vaccine, why take it?
Read that back to yourself. Unless the risk of side-effect * badness of side-effect outweighs the decrease in risk of the disease AND the decrease in the risk of others getting the disease (all times badness of disease), then take the damn shot. Not only are you ignoring what is known and what is alleged, you're being selfish as well. _________________ To avoid complications, she never kept the same address In conversation, she spoke just like a baroness |
|
I agree with senther there. The probability of receiving a bad side-effect of taking the vaccination is much smaller than the probability of receiving the H1N1 virus and risking possible death and spread of the virus _________________ My father believed that laughter was the best medicine...I guess that's why several of us died of tuberculosis. My computer beat me at chess... I beat it at kickboxing |
|
Just get the Thimerosal free vaccine. If you want to be consistent, don't eat tuna or fish. It has just as much mercury as any shot. For those who eat fish regularily along with getting free flu shots and who don't go out of whack, welcome to the boring world of the vast majority. But in principle, I don't like knowingly putting anything overly toxic in my body, mercury being one of them, and I could see why people would hesitate. But as a whole, the cheap shots are doing more good than worse. |
|
Yes, there is a risk that something bad will happen. It's pretty small but exists, yes. There's also a risk that you'll slip on the ice on the way to class this winter. Small, but it exists too. You could not go to class on slippery days to avoid the risk, but then you could fail the course/face academic penalties. Most people won't fall; most people won't have a bad reaction to the vaccine. You could be paralyzed by falling down the stairs; you could be paralyzed by this vaccine. Is it worth the risk? That's your choice. |
|
Quote: there's cases like this that prove them wrong.
It's incomprehensible how little you understand of the scientific method and "proving things" |
|
Quote: But not impossible. And thats the whole thing, if it's possible to get sick from a vaccine, why take it? Nobody seems to acknoweldge this point It's possible for a dick to shoot right through the wall beside me, but if it happens, im not going to blame my flu vaccine. |
|
Lock
Russia's greatest love machine Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 752 Location: The wrong place votes: 6 View user's profile |
Oh man. I don't usually lol at the Internet in public like that. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster  Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University  votes: 38 View user's profile |
aspie jew stereotype wrote: Look I don't want to argue numbers and statistics here. It's true that the flu is bad and can kill some people. But what would you tell the person who got dystonia from a vaccine that they could have skipped (as a healthy young person)? Assuming they proved the causal link I'd tell the person we're sorry. However, if a reporter then asked me about it I'd defend the vaccine very strongly because it saves lives. If you assume all lives are equal the right thing to do is to distribute the vaccine. Frankly, they should fine people who refuse.
My grandfather was a pharmacologist; for those of you who might not know, a pharmacologist studies the effects of drugs on the human body. He taught courses in a medical school, among other things, as a professor at the New York State University at Syracuse. When side effects were listed on medications he always used to say "Out of thousands of cases you will always get a couple of people reacting to anything, no matter what's in it." (Side note: Because of the numerical factor, the longer a drug is around the longer its list of side effects is and the scarier it looks, even though a more proven and documented drug is actually safer). Does this apply to vaccines? Perhaps But as Cormier put it: Cormier wrote: Second, this isn't a choice between risk and not risk. It's a choice between the (acknowledged) risk of the vaccine and the (known) risk of the disease. Certainly, the undesired outcomes of vaccination are tragic. I have one friend whose child was permanently injured by a bad reaction to an immunization. This has to be balanced against the number of people killed or injured by the disease. It's easy to point to a case where someone has been injured by a vaccine and say immunization was a bad idea for that person. If you're going to do that, though, you also have to consider the number of unimmunised people who suffer injury or death from the disease. What about their lost years? What about their families?
One thing people have to realize is exactly what is said in the first part: it's not a choice between a vaccine risk and no risk, but a choice between a minuscule vaccine risk and a much larger (even if still small) H1N1 risk. As in most choices, you can a better set of odds or a worse set of odds. You can't pick neither.
Logic, though, doesn't really enter into this. It's about the perception of control over risk. People are more willing to take a risk if they think they are in control of it. Everyone knows that, per passenger mile, more people die in cars than in airplanes. But they feel more in control of the car, so they minimise the risk. It's well known that UV radiation causes skin cancer, but people still go to tanning salons. Even when they understand that a tan is the body's response to DNA damage, they are happy to risk melanoma because they feel in control. Senther mentions a sometimes overlooked effect; that if an unvaccinated person gets sick they can, at times, actually transmit the illness to the person who was vaccinated. This is something they wouldn't have been able to do had they actually been vaccinated. The vaccine, for the record, still vastly reduces your likelihood of getting the illness so it's still worthwhile; it's just that Senther is correct in saying that people are risking others' health as well as their own. I encourage people to find out about medical things - it's important for patients to be engaged in their care, it can help them mentally as well as physically (as I've observed from relatives) and they can occasionally find something overlooked by a doctor. That said, taking that as far as assuming you know better than a doctor is foolishness, especially when all the public health officials (including more than a few doctors) are giving the same medical opinion. What on earth do you think they do in medical school for four years? I'm not going to get that level of expertise from spending some research time on the internet even if I look up the Mayo Clinic's website (highly recommended, by the way; it's very readable and accessible). Listen to the experts; any slob can make a video, even a factual-report-looking video. It's much rarer to find an uninformed slob with a medical degree and doctor's license. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears wrote: Frankly, they should fine people who refuse.
From a public health standpoint that makes sense, but it would be nearly unenforceable. I would like to see employers who provide health benefits come up with some sort of incentive for getting vaccinated against H1N1 (or a disincentive for not) given the public health chaos about to ensue. The PHAC has actually foreseen some of the issues arising by ordering a number of doses without adjuvant that will be offered for pregnant women and children under 3. I'm glad to see there are some people in this thread who understand the implications of implying causation or "proof". Honestly, I can respect the voices that worry about the efficacy and side effects of new vaccines. H1N1 vaccines in particular have been rushed through clinical trials out of necessity. If that is the argument, I have no problem hearing it, though I might not necessarily agree. As soon as I hear implied causation to the development of autism or any neurologic disorder though, the conversation is over for me. There is no reliable evidence to even begin to make that argument. |
|
Chesty LaRue
X-Talk Pervert  Joined: 05 Jul 2006 Posts: 4166 Location: Up Yours votes: 29 View user's profile |
I'm not getting the vaccination because I have an immune system. It's just the flu with a lot of hype surrounding it. _________________ Who said that?! |
|
Lock
Russia's greatest love machine Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 752 Location: The wrong place votes: 6 View user's profile |
Chesty LaRue wrote: I'm not getting the vaccination because I have an immune system. It's just the flu with a lot of hype surrounding it. I'm glad you know so much better than the rest of us.
|
|
Chesty LaRue
X-Talk Pervert Joined: 05 Jul 2006 Posts: 4166 Location: Up Yours votes: 29 View user's profile |
Lock wrote: Chesty LaRue wrote: I'm not getting the vaccination because I have an immune system. It's just the flu with a lot of hype surrounding it. I'm glad you know so much better than the rest of us.I'm glad I'm not a sheep. _________________ Who said that?! |
|
Chesty LaRue wrote: I'm not getting the vaccination because I have an immune system. It's just the flu with a lot of hype surrounding it.
Actually, as you know, the idea of the vaccination is to allow your immune system to deal with the infection without you having to go through becoming ill. And yes, it is just the flu; there's nothing magic about this one except that it's much more lethal to normally healthy young people than the usual seasonal flu. That's the hype. Some people who get this will die, and there look to be more of those people than for seasonal flu. And they are typically younger. Take whatever action you feel appropriate. |
|
Listen to the professor. A vaccine is basically just a deactivated form of the virus that can be detected by your body so that the immune response is there in case the actual virus comes along. In this event, as Cormier said, your body is already capable of dealing with the illness and you can avoid becoming sick. |
|
Chesty LaRue
X-Talk Pervert Joined: 05 Jul 2006 Posts: 4166 Location: Up Yours votes: 29 View user's profile |
I doubt it's more lethal. Also, there is the potential for the virus mutating, rendering the vaccine useless. I'll do my thing, you guys do yours. _________________ Who said that?! |
TheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Flu shots - Reply to topic
