Forums | MacLife

I get a regular flu shot nearly every year. I have no problem with vaccinations.

However, I wouldn't be at all happy getting a vaccine that was rushed out the door. I'll wait until I can judge that it's safe for me to receive.

Farmerkev wrote:

If this was abortion most of you would be arguing strenuously that the individual had a right to choose what happens with their own body.
Several of you here just reenforced what people against government health care have been saying in fact, that personal choice would go out the window for the greater good. You're right on board with it.

Since when is an abortion a public health measure?

Chickenhawk wrote:

So you don't feel that in time of pandemic, the state is able to take certain public health measures that may infringe on the rights of private citizens?

1) We aren't in a pandemic.
2) Forcing, no. Strongly recommending, yes. Making available a vaccine at highly subsidized prices (or free), hell yes.
3) Quarantines are legal, and have been used before.

I don't think it's legal to say, "get the shot, or lose your job". I doubt it would hold up in court.

In the past, I've avoided getting the flu shot like the plague.
I'll get this one, even if it does make me sick for a few days while it "takes".

DukeofNuke wrote:

resedit wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Refusing steps to increase herd immunity is stupid.

Then let survival of the fittest strengthen the herd.

Even when you (or one of your brothers) are one of the ones being culled?

I don't think I will be.
I had similar symptoms at the same time as cases in Redding were reported. I think I've already had it. Why then risk a vaccination?

radarman wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Why the military and not any other government employees?

The military voluntarily ceded many of their rights when they took up the oath of office, and they have already pledged to place themselves in harms way to protect the nation. Asking them to accept vaccinations isn't all that different from asking them to patrol IED boulevard in Iraq.

Civilian health staff, on the other hand, have taken no such oath; as I don't believe risking your own health falls under the Hippocratic oath.

being a carrier of disease does. This is a prophylactic effort. Health care workers can spread the disease to at risk individuals. Hence they are being mandated to get the vaccination to PREVENT that occurrence.

Just stop.

resedit wrote:

Has this been demonstrated to be an issue with health care workers who follow standard facemask latex gloves protocol?

Gloves are probably unnecessary as flu is primarily transmitted by inhalation of aerosolized droplets. Hand washing should be adequate. Masks would probably be very effective in preventing the spread, but medical staff are not great at complying with even standard precautions.

My gut is that most health workers have already been exposed to the virus.

No evidence to support this. The virus has been largely dormant during the summer but is gaining momentum.

My gut is also that the vast majority will get the vaccine w/o needing it mandated.

I wouldn't count on it. My institution is "highly recommending" that everyone be vaccinated. You get a sticker on your ID badge once you get your shot. People are already bickering about how it's an invasion of privacy, they never get sick, the flu shot will make you sick, etc.

Wasn't there a bad batch of flu vaccines a few years back that were extremely dangerous?
I seem to recall there being a shortage, as price fixing had bottomed out the profitability of the vaccine, so only a few places made it, and one of those places had a contamination problem.

I don't recall that incident, but it's possible. Vaccine manufacturing is not very profitable and there have been several vaccine shortages in recent years.

What happens when your entire staff is vaccinated from a contaminated lot?

That's why they put mercury in the vaccines. For your protection.

DevoDoc wrote:

[snip]

resedit wrote:

My gut is that most health workers have already been exposed to the virus.

No evidence to support this. The virus has been largely dormant during the summer but is gaining momentum.
[snip]

Actually H1N1 has been more active in the US during 2009 as all flu viruses were during the 2008-2009 flu seacon. Click here to see a chart showing the flu infection rates in the US during the past year. Note that the first bump on that chart indicates the usual flu season in the US.

sturner wrote:

You are now questioning best practices. The next step is to not require that health care workers wash their hands frequently. Or wear latex gloves during examinations or procedures.

Your gut reaction is the same as saying prove that there are actually tiny microorganisms that can't be seen by the naked eye that cause disease.

Your other arguments are specious and worst case paranoia.

None of the things you listed are medical procedures that can permanently harm you, except perhaps the latex gloves - and there are non-latex alternatives that are generally used anyway.

Also, no one is downplaying the seriousness of the situation - only questioning how far the state can go in forcing people to do things against their will "for the good of all"

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Last, understand that a vaccination does not guarantee immunity. For some people the vaccination will give them little or no direct benefit (and if you have some suggestion of how this can be predicted this beforehand, I'm sure that the committee awarding the Nobel Prize for Medicine will be interested in hearing from you eventually). The purpose of vaccination programs (as opposed to your personal vaccination) is to minimize the chances that a person who lacks immunity--whether by age or by happenstance--will encounter an infectious person and become infected himself. This is the herd immunity that someone mentioned earlier. Already the anti-vaccination fear-mongerers are responsible for the re-emergence of measles because they have convinced people not to vaccinate their children.

1) No one is arguing (that I am aware of) that vaccines are bad. I think most reasonable adults agree that they are a good thing. I know I keep my vaccinations up do date, and my daughter is getting her vaccinations as well.

2) We aren't talking about a vaccine that's been around since the 50's or 60's, and has been proven safe. We are talking about a brand new vaccine that hasn't been fully tested. Previous similar vaccines have been shown to have caused problems in the past, putting an even darker cloud over the whole thing. That doesn't even begin to discuss the fact that the vaccines are being rushed out as fast as humanly possible.

3) We aren't talking about military or children in school, we are talking about adults - in particularly, adults who are generally capable of deciding for themselves the risk versus reward of the vaccination.

radarman wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Last, understand that a vaccination does not guarantee immunity. For some people the vaccination will give them little or no direct benefit (and if you have some suggestion of how this can be predicted this beforehand, I'm sure that the committee awarding the Nobel Prize for Medicine will be interested in hearing from you eventually). The purpose of vaccination programs (as opposed to your personal vaccination) is to minimize the chances that a person who lacks immunity--whether by age or by happenstance--will encounter an infectious person and become infected himself. This is the herd immunity that someone mentioned earlier. Already the anti-vaccination fear-mongerers are responsible for the re-emergence of measles because they have convinced people not to vaccinate their children.

1) No one is arguing (that I am aware of) that vaccines are bad. I think most reasonable adults agree that they are a good thing. I know I keep my vaccinations up do date, and my daughter is getting her vaccinations as well.

Again, you haven't been reading the anti-vaccination pages. They do very vehemently argue against vaccinations; sometime flu specifically, others all vaccinations in general.

2) We aren't talking about a vaccine that's been around since the 50's or 60's, and has been proven safe. We are talking about a brand new vaccine that hasn't been fully tested. Previous similar vaccines have been shown to have caused problems in the past, putting an even darker cloud over the whole thing. That doesn't even begin to discuss the fact that the vaccines are being rushed out as fast as humanly possible.

The first link in my post you quoted dealt with this "problem". I quote:

Claim: It usually takes several years to test a drug and show that it is safe, but the swine flu vaccine is going to be fast-tracked for quick approval.

Fact: A new flu vaccine has to be developed every year to respond to the new strains that are constantly evolving. Time does not allow for the same kind of testing we require for approval of a new pharmaceutical. Time is even shorter for the swine flu this year. We have a lot of experience in producing new flu vaccines every year, and there is no reason to suspect that this year’s batches will be any more dangerous than usual. Because of fast-tracking, we will be monitoring very closely for side effects. We have a choice between fast-tracking and being prepared for a serious outbreak, or being slow and cautious and totally unprepared.

3) We aren't talking about military or children in school, we are talking about adults - in particularly, adults who are generally capable of deciding for themselves the risk versus reward of the vaccination.

I do question your latter point--see my answer to 1) above. Given a perfect world where the nonsense vendors are minimized, sure; but there are many people who are spouting ill-informed opinions which have little to do with reality.