OT: Apparently there is a fairly significant number of citizens that
- Thread starter whart
- Start date
Believe it or not, it's not about you - it's about everyone. This is communicable disease. As such, keeping people healthy is more than simply preventing them from being sick, it is also about keeping them from becoming vectors for spreading the disease. I know that this might be hard to understand but we WANT you healthy (that's why we wear masks). Ultimately that's what will keep everyone else healthy. It is my sincere hope that, if a vaccine is developed that is safe and effective, everyone gets it. Even if they never get sick and never got any other vaccine (psst, you HAVE).
It's not just about you. Just like the flu is not just about you, it is about being a vector for spread, covid is the same way.
Everyone should get every vaccine that is relevant to the geography that they live in. There is no good scientific reason not to and if you choose not to get a vaccine (be it covid or the flu or whatever) you are either ignorant or selfish or both.
People seem to approach this as some sort of macho test. I’m so healthy I don’t need a vaccine since I “never” get sick. Well after the first time you get it, you’ll be anxious to get the shot every year. But more importantly as the poster above said, getting the vaccine will prevent other people from getting COVID-19 that you may be transferring asymptomatically. You may never get sick or even know you have it, but you may unknowingly kill someone as a result. Do you really want to live with that, or in your world is it every man for himself? By limiting the number of people in the universe who are able to transmit the disease we are able to minimize the impact of the pandemic on the general population. If you want the economy to open up, you can do your part once a vaccine becomes available.
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
Let’s remember effective tests were available for free. We shot ourselves in the foot.
We won’t get out of our own way any better with a vaccine, whenever one that works becomes available.
Thanks for your expert advice Doc. But I'll take my chances.
BTW ... Yesterday WHO announced that masks are not necessary. Do not believe me. Go to the official WHO press release. They released a statement yesterday that unless you are a medical worker, or you have symptoms associated with being highly immune, then masks are NOT necessary. If you are a healthy person, with no high level risk, then masks are not required... per WHO 5/28/20.
Sorry, but I was thinking to much about myself, to understand your post.
Did you ever think that we get it. We are not stupid. But the hard data simply do not justify what you are preaching. You know that .06% of the population in the USA live in assisted living. But over 45% of the deaths associated with C-19 are from people living in assisted living. Think about those odds. A group of people who account for .06% of the total population account for 45% of the total.
No. I am not "macho". But I am going to look at that data, and say this was something that really became politicized, and I am going to look at the data and make my own determination and not be used as a political pawn.
I didn't want to take the polio shot in 1955, but I am sure glad that my parents forced it on me. I do now get a flu shot annually, as well as tetanus (lockjaw booster every ten years) and recently got the upgraded Shingles vaccine. I will depend upon my Primary Care Physician to let me know if a COVID-19 vaccine is safe for people in my age group. Why, I DON'T like wearing a mask to go outside!
Guess it depends upon your age, but as you get older will you remember that you are still vulunerable?
But let's say by getting the vaccine, you can save 1 life. And there is zero risk to you. Why wouldn't you do that?
What difference does that make? You don't want to save the 45% from getting it because they are a small segment of the population? OK, but you further don't care about spreading it to the other 55% that might include you? I'm not sure why you wouldn't want this. I don't care about your or anyone else's politics; to me this is a medical issue.
I will - but if there is a vaccine in a reasonable time frame I will get it. But with that being said if they haven’t developed one or it doesn’t work I will get tested and hop on a plane and go see them. I am in e that if I think of it I get the flu shot if not I don’t - I have little faith that this will be a silver bullet but if it’s available I will at least try it and get the test’
Fair enough but can you please respond to my post a page or so up? Summarized - maybe to keep you from looking: Does a vaccine keep me from getting the virus? Or just getting sick from it? If I get a vaccine and it is effective, then get exposed, am I not a carrier? Or am I still “infected” and a potential carrier just not sick. Not not not arguing , just seeking to understand.
P.S. lots of people far more knowledgeable than me, including the NE Journal of Medicine, are saying masks for casual interaction (ie in stores) do nothing.
There is NOT zero risk to me. ANY vaccine can cause a negative effect on ANYONE. Not every human body reacts the same. Heck, some people will throw up their guts by taking a simple Bayer aspirin. There is no way they can tell us that any drug, any medication, any vaccine is 100% safe for EVERYONE. Again... they can not even guarantee that on a bottle of Bayer.
Did you ever notice that every questionnaire at every doctors office always asks if you are allergic to any medications... what did you think that "Are you allergic to any of the following medications" question was all about???
Last edited:
Gheez. It's the disproportionate statistics. It's not 45% vs. 55%. Read my post more closely. In the USA only .06% of our population resides in assisted living centers. 45% of all Covid related deaths are from that .06% pool.
That's not 45% vs/. 55%
The problem is there is not zero risk with vaccines. I know 2 different people that got Guilion Barre syndrome and one almost died. There is some thought that it could be related to vaccines.
Well, nothing is risk free. It’s all about math. If math was not utilized, we would still have small pix and the Plague.
I apologize for not being more clear. I understood your post. I'm saying that if 45% of Covid-related deaths come from one pool, first it doesn't matter what portion of the overall population it is and second, the remaining 55% of Covid-related deaths come from the other portion of the population, in this case the 99.94% that contain you. The virus doesn't care where you make the division. If you refuse to take a safe and effective vaccine and subsequently contract the disease, you will become a vector to spread it to 100% of the population.
First, a disclaimer: I am not an expert in any of this. For the most part, I'm simply offering my impressions or opinions. I'm open to other points of view and welcome any corrections to factual errors that I make.
I think that more information needs to be collected about the virus before we understand it sufficiently to answer some of your questions. More testing and contact tracing will be needed. As to the specific vaccine(s) that is/are ultimately developed, I assume that such information will be provided based on the outcomes and follow-up to their trials.
Regarding masks, I don't think a definitive study specific to this virus has been performed. I find the WHO guidance somewhat contradictory and I only saw one letter to the NEJM that said that masks were not recommended. I did not see their data but the authors are substantially more knowledgeable than me and their conclusions should be respected. However I have seen other reports that have recommended masks to attenuate the spread. People can make their own decisions but, until otherwise indicated, I'll probably keep wearing one. Like for most people, it's irritating and inconvenient but I feel that's a small price to pay for potentially reducing the spread and saving lives. At a minimum, it is a symbolic gesture to indicate that I care about the well-being of those who encounter me.
Yeah, 1-2 people per million doses of the vaccine get GBS. Hardly a steadfast link.
It's not zero risk.
I will wait and see if I get it. I get boosters for tetanus and such. 1 flu shot and got the flu worse than I ever did before about 6 weeks after getting it. Friend from nhi doesn't get regular flu shots
Well I don’t know a million people but I know two that got GBS within 30 miles of one another right after flu vaccines. My point is vaccines, especially one that is rushed through is far from risk free. I have periodically gotten the flu vaccine plus had a pneumonia one too. Not an antivaxer but there are some risks.
Food for thought....
1976 'swine flu' vaccine may offer pandemic H1N1 protection
Maryn McKenna
Apr 26, 2010 (CIDRAP News) – The long-derided "swine flu" vaccination campaign of 1976, infamous for its association with cases of paralyzing Guillain-Barre syndrome, may have had a benefit that went undetected for more than 30 years. According to work published Apr 23, it may have protected recipients against the 2009 pandemic strain of flu.
Scientists from St Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis reported in the online edition of Clinical Infectious Diseases that people who received the 1976 vaccine produced a much more robust immune response against the novel 2009 strain than people of the same age who were not vaccinated back then. They also produced a stronger immune response against the seasonal H1N1 strain that circulated in 2008-09, which was replaced by the 2009 pandemic strain.
Taken together, the authors say, those results suggest that vaccination with a closely related strain of flu may confer some protection when vaccines against a circulating strain do not exist—such as in the early months after a pandemic strain first emerges, before the vaccine-manufacturing system can respond.
The study results arrive against a backdrop of observations and some laboratory reports from last winter that all describe older adults as less likely to have become infected with the novel 2009 flu.
In the study, 116 Memphis residents aged 55 to 73—110 members of the St Jude staff and 6 spouses—donated blood samples to check whether they possessed antibodies that would cross-react with flu strains from the past 2 years. Forty-six of the 116 had been vaccinated in 1976 against the novel swine H1N1 that surfaced that spring at Fort Dix in New Jersey, sickening 200 military recruits and killing 1 of them.
The vaccination campaign that was launched as a result of those cases inoculated 45 million Americans against the perceived threat of a new flu pandemic. The feared pandemic never arrived—the flu did not spread beyond Fort Dix—but more than 500 people, about 1 in 100,000 of those vaccinated, developed Guillain-Barre.
In the current research, the volunteers' blood was collected before the 2009 pandemic reached Tennessee, meaning that they were not likely to have been exposed to the new flu and developed an immune response to it. Under normal circumstances, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 1 person per 1 million who receives flu vaccine is at higher risk for the temporary but potentially fatal paralyzing syndrome.
When the volunteers' blood was analyzed using two tests, hemagglutination-inhibition assay (HAI) and microneutralization titer (MN), they were found to possess robust immunity against the 2008-09 seasonal strain. Those antibodies, however, were cross-reactive but non-neutralizing—not protective—against the 2009 pandemic strain.
However, those who had taken the 1976 vaccine were different. They also mounted significant neutralizing antibody responses against the 2009 pandemic strain, with some of them demonstrating MN titers of more than 160, four times the number that is the agreed-upon correlate of immunity. But it is not clear, the authors say, whether that antibody response would actually have protected the volunteers against 2009 infection.
The authors are careful to say that the reaction shown by the study subjects is probably not the explanation for the low rates of illness seen during the 2009 pandemic among elderly adults. Not enough vaccine was distributed in 1976 to exert that effect, they said, and the low 2009 infection rate has also been observed in countries that never used the 1976 vaccine. In addition, they caution that, as healthcare workers, the volunteers come from a group that receives frequent flu shots and is probably not representative of the general population.
But because the 1976 strain was only related to, and not identical to, the novel 2009 virus, the results may lend support to a hypothesis that has been periodically advanced during pandemic-preparedness planning: the idea that in time of scarcity, even a related vaccine from a past season may be of some help until a perfectly matched vaccine arrives.
McCullers JA, Van De Velde LA, Allison KJ, et al. Recipients of vaccine against the 1976 "swine flu" have enhanced neutralization responses to the 2009 novel H1N1 influenza virus. Clin Infect Dis 2010 (published online Apr 23) [Abstract]
1976 'swine flu' vaccine may offer pandemic H1N1 protection
Maryn McKenna
Apr 26, 2010 (CIDRAP News) – The long-derided "swine flu" vaccination campaign of 1976, infamous for its association with cases of paralyzing Guillain-Barre syndrome, may have had a benefit that went undetected for more than 30 years. According to work published Apr 23, it may have protected recipients against the 2009 pandemic strain of flu.
Scientists from St Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis reported in the online edition of Clinical Infectious Diseases that people who received the 1976 vaccine produced a much more robust immune response against the novel 2009 strain than people of the same age who were not vaccinated back then. They also produced a stronger immune response against the seasonal H1N1 strain that circulated in 2008-09, which was replaced by the 2009 pandemic strain.
Taken together, the authors say, those results suggest that vaccination with a closely related strain of flu may confer some protection when vaccines against a circulating strain do not exist—such as in the early months after a pandemic strain first emerges, before the vaccine-manufacturing system can respond.
The study results arrive against a backdrop of observations and some laboratory reports from last winter that all describe older adults as less likely to have become infected with the novel 2009 flu.
In the study, 116 Memphis residents aged 55 to 73—110 members of the St Jude staff and 6 spouses—donated blood samples to check whether they possessed antibodies that would cross-react with flu strains from the past 2 years. Forty-six of the 116 had been vaccinated in 1976 against the novel swine H1N1 that surfaced that spring at Fort Dix in New Jersey, sickening 200 military recruits and killing 1 of them.
The vaccination campaign that was launched as a result of those cases inoculated 45 million Americans against the perceived threat of a new flu pandemic. The feared pandemic never arrived—the flu did not spread beyond Fort Dix—but more than 500 people, about 1 in 100,000 of those vaccinated, developed Guillain-Barre.
In the current research, the volunteers' blood was collected before the 2009 pandemic reached Tennessee, meaning that they were not likely to have been exposed to the new flu and developed an immune response to it. Under normal circumstances, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 1 person per 1 million who receives flu vaccine is at higher risk for the temporary but potentially fatal paralyzing syndrome.
When the volunteers' blood was analyzed using two tests, hemagglutination-inhibition assay (HAI) and microneutralization titer (MN), they were found to possess robust immunity against the 2008-09 seasonal strain. Those antibodies, however, were cross-reactive but non-neutralizing—not protective—against the 2009 pandemic strain.
However, those who had taken the 1976 vaccine were different. They also mounted significant neutralizing antibody responses against the 2009 pandemic strain, with some of them demonstrating MN titers of more than 160, four times the number that is the agreed-upon correlate of immunity. But it is not clear, the authors say, whether that antibody response would actually have protected the volunteers against 2009 infection.
The authors are careful to say that the reaction shown by the study subjects is probably not the explanation for the low rates of illness seen during the 2009 pandemic among elderly adults. Not enough vaccine was distributed in 1976 to exert that effect, they said, and the low 2009 infection rate has also been observed in countries that never used the 1976 vaccine. In addition, they caution that, as healthcare workers, the volunteers come from a group that receives frequent flu shots and is probably not representative of the general population.
But because the 1976 strain was only related to, and not identical to, the novel 2009 virus, the results may lend support to a hypothesis that has been periodically advanced during pandemic-preparedness planning: the idea that in time of scarcity, even a related vaccine from a past season may be of some help until a perfectly matched vaccine arrives.
McCullers JA, Van De Velde LA, Allison KJ, et al. Recipients of vaccine against the 1976 "swine flu" have enhanced neutralization responses to the 2009 novel H1N1 influenza virus. Clin Infect Dis 2010 (published online Apr 23) [Abstract]
Yes. I agree ion principal. Ultimately "all" C-19 related deaths would need to factor in 100% of the population. If you are a human, then you reside in that 100% group. But we are seeing a huge disparity in C-19 deaths amongst the elderly. Like I said earlier, 45% of all C-19 deaths come from people in assisted living residences. Another large % are from age groups 70 and greater. Take away the people in assisted living and the people 70 and older and the mortality rate for C-19 gets down to marginal numbers. At one point do we take a deep breath, forget about the initial fear that was dealt to us by the media, the government, by the medical world and say "OK, we now have 3 months of hard data... we kind make some logical and rational decisions"
Boy, I remember this. Kar, the kids and myself Standing in line at a high school waiting to be injected . The first and last time I had a flu shot.
The Public Health Legacy of the 1976 Swine Flu Outbreak
Vaccines were once thought of as an axiomatic good, a longed-for salvation in the form of a syringe, banishing crippling and deadly infections like polio, smallpox and tetanus. But within the past few decades we have seen the emergence of anti-vaccination movements and a rise in cases of childhood diseases that are entirely preventable with a quick jab to the arm.
Over the past five years, outbreaks of mumps, measles and whooping cough have cropped up throughout the country. And then, of course, there is widespread skepticism among the general public on influenza and the merits of a seasonal flu shot. Even as outbreaks of avian and swine flu have periodically emerged in this country, there are still people who resist vaccination against the flu. This seemingly pervasive opposition to flu vaccination is not without its historical and sociological roots.
Some of the American public’s hesitance to embrace vaccines — the flu vaccine in particular — can be attributed to the long-lasting effects of a failed 1976 political campaign to mass-vaccinate the public against a strain of the swine flu virus. This government-led campaign was widely viewed as a debacle and put an irreparable dent in future public health initiatives, as well as negatively influenced the public’s perception of both the flu and the flu shot in this country.
A long line of people in New Jersey waiting for the opportunity be vaccinated against the 1976 swine flu. (Credit: CDC)
In the late winter of 1976, a completely novel strain of influenza was causing hundreds of respiratory infections at Fort Dix, an army post located in central New Jersey. Initially, this virus appeared to be closely genetically related to the 1918 flu pandemic that killed over a 100 million people globally, a pandemic that shared the very same Fort Dix as one its points of origin. These striking coincidences, along with the virus’s “sustained person-to-person spread,” prompted global public health officials to start planning for what could conceivably burgeon into a series of large and deadly outbreaks, if not an actual pandemic, in the upcoming winter (1).
But while the World Health Organization adopted a cautious “wait and see” policy to monitor the virus’s pattern of disease and to track the number of emerging infections, President Gerald Ford’s administration embarked on a zealous campaign to vaccinate every American with brisk efficiency. In late March, President Ford announced in a press conference the government’s plan to vaccinate “every man, woman, and child in the United States” (1). Emergency legislation for the “National Swine Flu Immunization Program” was signed shortly thereafter on April 15th, 1976 and six months later high profile photos of celebrities and political figures receiving the flu jab appeared in the media. Even President Ford himself was photographed in his office receiving his shot from the White House doctor.
Within 10 months, nearly 25% of the US population, or 45 million citizens, was vaccinated, but serious problems persisted throughout the process (2). Due to the urgency of creating new immunizations for a novel virus, the government used an attenuated “live virus” for the vaccine instead of a inactivated or “killed” form, increasing the probability of adverse side effects among susceptible groups of people receiving the vaccination. Furthermore, prominent American scientists and health professionals began questioning the campaign’s large expense and its drain on scarce public health resources (2).
With President Ford’s reelection campaign looming on the horizon, the campaign increasingly appeared politically motivated. The rationale for mass vaccination seemed to stem from only the barest of biological reasoning — it turned out that the flu wasn’t even related to the virus that caused the grisly 1918 epidemic and, indeed, those who were infected with the flu only suffered from a mild illness while the vaccine, for the reasons stated above, resulted in over four-hundred and fifty people developing the paralyzing Guillain-Barré syndrome. Meanwhile, outside the United States’ borders, the flu never mushroomed into the anticipated public health disaster. It was the pandemic that never was. The New York Times went so far as to dub the whole affair a “fiasco,” damning one of the largest and probably one of the most well-intentioned public health initiatives by the US government (1).
A woman receiving a vaccination with a jet injector during the swine flu nationwide vaccination campaign, which began October 1, 1976. (Credit: CDC)
As the historian George Dehner wrote in his 2010 review on the lessons learned from the 1976 flu response,
The Swine Flu Program was marred by a series of logistical problems ranging from the production of the wrong vaccine strain to a confrontation over liability protection to a temporal connection of the vaccine and a cluster of deaths among an elderly population in Pittsburgh. The most damning charge against the vaccination program was that the shots were correlated with an increase in the number of patients diagnosed with an obscure neurological disease known as Guillain–Barré syndrome (1).
The American public can be notably skeptical of forceful government enterprises in public health, whether involving vaccine advocacy or limitations on the size of soft drinks sold in fast food chains or even information campaigns against emerging outbreaks. The events of 1976 “triggered an enduring public backlash against flu vaccination, embarrassed the federal government and cost the director of the U.S. Center for Disease Control his job.” It may have even compromised Gerald Ford’s presidential re-election as well as the government’s response to a new sexually transmitted virus that emerged only a few years later in the early ‘80s, killing young gay men and intravenous drug users. What happened in 1976 is a cautionary public health tale, the story of a vaccination quagmire that still resonates in the public psyche and in our discussions about vaccines today.
Of the 45 million people vaccinated against the 1976 swine flu, four hundred and fifty people developed the rare syndrome Guillain-Barré. From the CDC,
In 1976 there was a small increased risk of GBS following vaccination with an influenza vaccine made to protect against a swine flu virus. The increased risk was approximately 1 additional case of GBS per 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a thorough scientific review of this issue in 2003 and concluded that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS. Scientists have multiple theories on why this increased risk may have occurred, but the exact reason for this association remains unknown.
It is important to keep in mind that severe illness and death are associated with influenza, and vaccination is the best way to prevent influenza infection and its complications.
The Public Health Legacy of the 1976 Swine Flu Outbreak
Vaccines were once thought of as an axiomatic good, a longed-for salvation in the form of a syringe, banishing crippling and deadly infections like polio, smallpox and tetanus. But within the past few decades we have seen the emergence of anti-vaccination movements and a rise in cases of childhood diseases that are entirely preventable with a quick jab to the arm.
Over the past five years, outbreaks of mumps, measles and whooping cough have cropped up throughout the country. And then, of course, there is widespread skepticism among the general public on influenza and the merits of a seasonal flu shot. Even as outbreaks of avian and swine flu have periodically emerged in this country, there are still people who resist vaccination against the flu. This seemingly pervasive opposition to flu vaccination is not without its historical and sociological roots.
Some of the American public’s hesitance to embrace vaccines — the flu vaccine in particular — can be attributed to the long-lasting effects of a failed 1976 political campaign to mass-vaccinate the public against a strain of the swine flu virus. This government-led campaign was widely viewed as a debacle and put an irreparable dent in future public health initiatives, as well as negatively influenced the public’s perception of both the flu and the flu shot in this country.
A long line of people in New Jersey waiting for the opportunity be vaccinated against the 1976 swine flu. (Credit: CDC)
In the late winter of 1976, a completely novel strain of influenza was causing hundreds of respiratory infections at Fort Dix, an army post located in central New Jersey. Initially, this virus appeared to be closely genetically related to the 1918 flu pandemic that killed over a 100 million people globally, a pandemic that shared the very same Fort Dix as one its points of origin. These striking coincidences, along with the virus’s “sustained person-to-person spread,” prompted global public health officials to start planning for what could conceivably burgeon into a series of large and deadly outbreaks, if not an actual pandemic, in the upcoming winter (1).
But while the World Health Organization adopted a cautious “wait and see” policy to monitor the virus’s pattern of disease and to track the number of emerging infections, President Gerald Ford’s administration embarked on a zealous campaign to vaccinate every American with brisk efficiency. In late March, President Ford announced in a press conference the government’s plan to vaccinate “every man, woman, and child in the United States” (1). Emergency legislation for the “National Swine Flu Immunization Program” was signed shortly thereafter on April 15th, 1976 and six months later high profile photos of celebrities and political figures receiving the flu jab appeared in the media. Even President Ford himself was photographed in his office receiving his shot from the White House doctor.
Within 10 months, nearly 25% of the US population, or 45 million citizens, was vaccinated, but serious problems persisted throughout the process (2). Due to the urgency of creating new immunizations for a novel virus, the government used an attenuated “live virus” for the vaccine instead of a inactivated or “killed” form, increasing the probability of adverse side effects among susceptible groups of people receiving the vaccination. Furthermore, prominent American scientists and health professionals began questioning the campaign’s large expense and its drain on scarce public health resources (2).
With President Ford’s reelection campaign looming on the horizon, the campaign increasingly appeared politically motivated. The rationale for mass vaccination seemed to stem from only the barest of biological reasoning — it turned out that the flu wasn’t even related to the virus that caused the grisly 1918 epidemic and, indeed, those who were infected with the flu only suffered from a mild illness while the vaccine, for the reasons stated above, resulted in over four-hundred and fifty people developing the paralyzing Guillain-Barré syndrome. Meanwhile, outside the United States’ borders, the flu never mushroomed into the anticipated public health disaster. It was the pandemic that never was. The New York Times went so far as to dub the whole affair a “fiasco,” damning one of the largest and probably one of the most well-intentioned public health initiatives by the US government (1).
A woman receiving a vaccination with a jet injector during the swine flu nationwide vaccination campaign, which began October 1, 1976. (Credit: CDC)
As the historian George Dehner wrote in his 2010 review on the lessons learned from the 1976 flu response,
The Swine Flu Program was marred by a series of logistical problems ranging from the production of the wrong vaccine strain to a confrontation over liability protection to a temporal connection of the vaccine and a cluster of deaths among an elderly population in Pittsburgh. The most damning charge against the vaccination program was that the shots were correlated with an increase in the number of patients diagnosed with an obscure neurological disease known as Guillain–Barré syndrome (1).
The American public can be notably skeptical of forceful government enterprises in public health, whether involving vaccine advocacy or limitations on the size of soft drinks sold in fast food chains or even information campaigns against emerging outbreaks. The events of 1976 “triggered an enduring public backlash against flu vaccination, embarrassed the federal government and cost the director of the U.S. Center for Disease Control his job.” It may have even compromised Gerald Ford’s presidential re-election as well as the government’s response to a new sexually transmitted virus that emerged only a few years later in the early ‘80s, killing young gay men and intravenous drug users. What happened in 1976 is a cautionary public health tale, the story of a vaccination quagmire that still resonates in the public psyche and in our discussions about vaccines today.
Of the 45 million people vaccinated against the 1976 swine flu, four hundred and fifty people developed the rare syndrome Guillain-Barré. From the CDC,
In 1976 there was a small increased risk of GBS following vaccination with an influenza vaccine made to protect against a swine flu virus. The increased risk was approximately 1 additional case of GBS per 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a thorough scientific review of this issue in 2003 and concluded that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS. Scientists have multiple theories on why this increased risk may have occurred, but the exact reason for this association remains unknown.
It is important to keep in mind that severe illness and death are associated with influenza, and vaccination is the best way to prevent influenza infection and its complications.
However you argue it, it shows your lack of caring for other people. Yes, a high % of people that have died live in assisted living facilities. But If you and and a small % of everyone else that refuses to get the vaccine do eventually get the virus, that in turn is going to lead to transmission to people in the assisted living facilities and it’s going to result in avoidable deaths.
I work at a manufacturing plant that has been in operation this whole time. We haven’t had anyone sick until this week, where 3 people have just tested positive. I live in a state where restaurants are already open and you typically see ppl without masks and not social distancing.
I honestly think things are about to get worse. Not sure how they this doesn’t go downhill, this all started with a couple people sick up in the pacific NW (I know that can be argued) and then things blew up to 100k ppl dying. Things got kinda under control with social distancing, but now there are thousands of ppl sick and social distancing is easing. If a few ppl being sick led to 100k eventually dying, how does this not become another few hundred thousand people dying in the US?
Step, no more recent medical analysis follow-up than from 10 years ago ? Just askin' 
Give us all the BS break about "caring" for other people. If we all "cared" so much about other people : a) there would be no smoking as that creates 2nd hand smoke, b) there would be no drinking and driving, c) there would be no un-protected sex.....
You "care so much about other people"... OK. I want to see you standing at the exits of Beaver Stadium at 4pm on a Saturday checking all those people driving home after they've been tailgating, because if they got in their cars and drove home after drinking ... "they do not care about other people". And next time you see someone smoking in public, I expect you to get in their face and tell them "they do not care about others".
I guess my point was that I don't think it matters who is dying, I believe that being vaccinated in order to save more from dying is a small price to pay. Maybe it depends on whether you think that the vaccination won't reduce subsequent deaths or whether those deaths will simply occur predominately in a segment you don't care about. I don't understand why you would choose not to receive a safe and effective vaccination even if there was a marginal chance to save a life. I'm getting on everyone's nerves and Tom has probably had enough of this so I'll back off from here on out.
you seem like a pleasant person. Kinda proves my point
No. Just pointing out that someone like you is a hypocrite. On THIS subject you'll want to shame people who do not follow your narrative by the "you do not care about other people". Funny, because you do not know me, you do not know my charitable work that I do, but you can claim I do not care about people. Meanwhile, there are many examples of "not caring about other people" you have ben exposed to and will not think anything about. You don't think smokers have caused exponentially more damage to other people over the years than C-19??? Seriously, think about it. Think about all the cancer related deaths from people who were infected with second hand smoke. Where is the big campaign to stop this??
You'll preach to me on an internet thread about not caring for other people. Then later today you'll be stopped at a light, look over at the car next to you, see an adult smoking with child in back seat and do nothing .... But you'll have your mask on, so all is great !!!
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
FB Recruiting Penn State commit visting Ohio State this weekend- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley