(September 5, 2019 at 10:09 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: A flu shot IS a vaccine, no different in function or purpose than a vaccine for smallpox or measles.  The trouble with a flu vaccine is that there are numerous influenza viruses and they mutate with all the speed of a hungry cheetah. But even if a particular flu virus you get isn't the one you've been vaccinated against, your symptoms are likely to be shorter lived and less severe.

I think the results of the survey are likely pretty close to correct.  There is a huge amount of discredited disinformation about vaccines.

Boru

I see, then I think it could have been a confounding variable depending on how they worded their survey. From what I've experienced, the average person is suspicious of flu shots, thinks it gives you the flu instead of preventing it, and typically doesn't bother getting it.

If you lump flu shots with childhood vaccines in the same survey, the results may be exaggerated.

---

(September 5, 2019 at 10:06 am)wyzas Wrote: Two completely different topics.

They don't seem completely different to me. Both vaccines and antibiotics were major breakthroughs in the fight against diseases. Antibiotics are becoming increasingly and dangerously ineffective due to resistance, but the public eye is on vaccines because it loves fringe controversies: antivaxxers, flat-earthers, etc.

I also think antivaxx conversations thrive because we love proving others wrong and calling them "stupid" (e.g. onlinebiker). But it's not entirely clear what to do about resistance; we're all "stupid" in that regard, so we go back to vaccines.

You can correct ignorance, not so much for stupid.

This can be a very thorny topic to raise in the flesh, in my experience eg:

Mother of three: "I refuse to have my children vaccinated until it's proven they're safe."
Rational person: "Then you are complicit in the deaths of other children through lowering herd immunity."
Mother of three: "Fuck you I LOVE children and am NOT complicit in their deaths! Fuck you to hell!"

(September 5, 2019 at 11:00 am)wyzas Wrote: You can correct ignorance, not so much for stupid.

The difference between the two seems to be whether or not the person agrees with you at the end of the conversation.

(September 5, 2019 at 11:48 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(September 5, 2019 at 11:00 am)wyzas Wrote: You can correct ignorance, not so much for stupid.

The difference between the two seems to be whether or not the person agrees with you at the end of the conversation.

Nope, it has more to do with information/evidence.

(September 5, 2019 at 10:26 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: I see, then I think it could have been a confounding variable depending on how they worded their survey. From what I've experienced, the average person is suspicious of flu shots, thinks it gives you the flu instead of preventing it, and typically doesn't bother getting it.

In the early days of vaccines they were basicly living vaccines as the agents there were still active, albeit weakened and you could get weaker symptoms of the desease the vaccine was against, after taking it, it was very mild. Today they use dead vaccines. The agents are rendered innactive and its sufficient for the immune system to create antibodies against it.

Anyway, flu shots are quite optional and not payed by the NHS, except for children or the elderly.

In Portugal, all major diseases are covered by ghe NHS, including the HPV vaccine, available for free for women above the age of 12.

We thought measles was eradicated, but in a community of anti vaxxers recently, a 13 y o girl died of it, in an outbreak on her community. Because they were never vaccinated.

Herd immunity. There are people that can't have vaccines for mefical reasons, like allergies to components, immune system compromised, etc. Anti vaxxers beyond putting their children at risk, put others children at risk, for no reason, just weird thinking.

(September 5, 2019 at 12:22 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Herd immunity. There are people that can't have vaccines for mefical reasons, like allergies to components, immune system compromised, etc. Anti vaxxers beyond putting their children at risk, put others children at risk, for no reason, just weird thinking.

I haven't studied herd immunity yet, so at a glance I'm not entirely sure how it works. I think my confusion stems from not knowing how vaccines work in terms of immunity. The term immunity gives the impression of not being affected by something; I can have a virus in my system and it doesn't make me sick, I'm immune to it. But the term also seems to be used antagonistically; your system is better at attacking the disease.

If immunity means my body is unaffected by the disease, then herd immunity shouldn't work, because the disease is still present and carried by the population.

But if immunity means your body attacks the disease then it makes sense for the herd to benefit.

(September 5, 2019 at 12:44 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: If immunity means my body is unaffected by the disease, then herd immunity shouldn't work, because the disease is still present and carried by the population.

But if immunity means your body attacks the disease then it makes sense for the herd to benefit.

No. The hosts are immune hence no period of incubation for the agent. Therefore, any person unable to get vaccines, for various reasons would be relatively safe when nuts decide a reason to put themselves and their children and others not their own.

On the bright side, we do have too may people.

(September 5, 2019 at 12:44 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(September 5, 2019 at 12:22 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Herd immunity. There are people that can't have vaccines for mefical reasons, like allergies to components, immune system compromised, etc. Anti vaxxers beyond putting their children at risk,  put others children at risk, for no reason, just weird thinking.

I haven't studied herd immunity yet, so at a glance I'm not entirely sure how it works. I think my confusion stems from not knowing how vaccines work in terms of immunity. The term immunity gives the impression of not being affected by something; I can have a virus in my system and it doesn't make me sick, I'm immune to it. But the term also seems to be used antagonistically; your system is better at attacking the disease.

If immunity means my body is unaffected by the disease, then herd immunity shouldn't work, because the disease is still present and carried by the population.

But if immunity means your body attacks the disease then it makes sense for the herd to benefit.

If you are immune then your body doesn't replicate the virus when it encounters it destroys it.

So there is a herd benefit.