Alberta Health: Get your flu shot NOW

[Trex]

This strain of H1N1 is not included in this years flu shot. The majority of people that are sick, are sick from H1N1 and the shot wouldn't have done a damn thing.



That is obvious.





and in the case of flu shots, the effectiveness is down around 50% as they are just guessing as to the strains that will be out there in any given year.

Way to provide helpful and knowledgeable advice gerry.
Direct quote from a spokesperson from a senior Canadian Disease Control officer: "Skowronski says this year's flu vaccine does offer protection against the H1N1 strain"

This years flu vaccine contains vaccine that is targeted against three of the main expected flu strains, A/H1N1 is one of the three.
Immunity is expected to be at around the 60% mark after immunization

 

[mentalfloss]

Will more gubmint make it 100% effective?

Will more Walter make threads more sense?

 

[gerryh]

Way to provide helpful and knowledgeable advice gerry.
Direct quote from a spokesperson from a senior Canadian Disease Control officer: "Skowronski says this year's flu vaccine does offer protection against the H1N1 strain"

This years flu vaccine contains vaccine that is targeted against three of the main expected flu strains, A/H1N1 is one of the three.
Immunity is expected to be at around the 60% mark after immunization

Not what I was told.

Plus, 60% is pretty piss poor, and on top it is "expected"? Not guaranteed, but "expected".

 

[taxslave]

That's probably where your confusion lies. Flu shots are not tests. Are there any more misconceptions you would like me to clear up?

Would you take your car to a shop with a 50% success rate? Or do you have any more stupid comments?

 

[mentalfloss]

Not what I was told.

Plus, 60% is pretty piss poor, and on top it is "expected"? Not guaranteed, but "expected".

60% is pretty good when it comes to efficacy.

You also have to consider that the benefits multiply exponentially as those who are in contact with you have a lower chance of dying from this and that carries forward to their network of friends, etc.

 

[gerryh]

60% is pretty good when it comes to efficacy.

You also have to consider that the benefits multiply exponentially as those who are in contact with you have a lower chance of dying from this and that carries forward to their network of friends, etc.

I find it completely unacceptable. How many millions are we spending to get this piss poor out put?

 

[Sal]

The truth about vaccines is that the risk of severe illness from influenza will always outweigh the risk of any efficacy issues from being vaccinated.

Don't be insensitive to the suffering of others and take your shot.

how are others going to suffer...they got the flu shot remember...I can't give them the flu...

 

[Cannuck]

Would you take your car to a shop with a 50% success rate? Or do you have any more stupid comments?

Of course...if it wasn't costing me anything and not taking it there increased my risk of dying. Look, if you're going to use silly analogies, you're really going to have to do better before you start calling other people's comments stupid.

 

[gerryh]

Of course...if it wasn't costing me anything and not taking it there increased my risk of dying. Look, if you're going to use silly analogies, you're really going to have to do better before you start calling other people's comments stupid.

That shot is not free.

 

[Cannuck]

I find it completely unacceptable. How many millions are we spending to get this piss poor out put?

How much more would we spend if those that were immunized got sick. Mass innoculations are, by far cheaper. That's why people with a hell of a lot more smarts than you, disagree with your point of view. But hey...you just keep on believing the world is flat. At this point in time, it really isn't hurting anything.

 

[gerryh]

Study finds flu shot really did make people sicker | Metro

 

[Cannuck]

That shot is not free.

It is for the person getting the shot. Sure the taxpayers foot the bill but...well...I've already explained that.

Study finds flu shot really did make people sicker | Metro

Great link..

But in the meantime, Skowronski insisted the findings should not
deter people from getting seasonal flu shots.


“I do think it’s important to clarify that our findings are unique to
the pandemic,” she insisted.

 

[gerryh]

It is for the person getting the shot. Sure the taxpayers foot the bill but...well...I've already explained that.

So, in reality, it is not free. So how much are we, the taxpayers, paying for a shot that doesn't cover 100% and is far less than 100% effective?

 

[Cannuck]

.... So how much are we, the taxpayers, paying for a shot that doesn't cover 100% and is far less than 100% effective?

I don't know. What I do know is that the overwhelming consensus in the medical community is that it is cheaper than not doing it. I hope you understand that I value scientific consensus over a layman's opinion.

 

[taxslave]

I don't know. What I do know is that the overwhelming consensus in the medical community is that it is cheaper than not doing it. I hope you understand that I value scientific consensus over a layman's opinion.

Then explain why the public health nurse and a lot of hospital and ambulance staff are refusing to get one?

 

[gerryh]

I don't know. What I do know is that the overwhelming consensus in the medical community is that it is cheaper than not doing it. I hope you understand that I value scientific consensus over a layman's opinion.

I hope you realize that I value facts rather than the "consensus" of those that benefit monetarily from a program. At least you've moved from "it's free" to "I don't know how much it costs". Maybe if more people would question the costs versus the effectiveness we might get better effectiveness.

 

[Cannuck]

Then explain why the public health nurse and a lot of hospital and ambulance staff are refusing to get one?

I don't know them so I can only really guess. Having said that, perhaps they are just stupid

 

[Tonington]

Not getting a flu shot is a good first step. Many health care workers are refusing to get shots here. At least the smarter ones.

At least the smarter ones? No, umm not really. A healthcare provider who is exposed to more viral pressure, and who is smart, would not refuse protection unless the risk of the protection is greater than the risk of the disease. There are very few cases where that is in fact a reality. Furthermore, the choices they make as a service provider have a direct impact on the outcomes of patients. Therefore it's no longer just a personal risk with the consequences of that choice confined to them, their choices directly impact the consequences of others who have very little choice in choosing where they go to receive such services. People in hospitals and patients seeing clinicians are already often immunocompromised in some fashion, and it's irresponsible, unethical, and frankly dangerous for healthcare providers to forgo a shot that can prevent illness and deaths in patients.

 

[Cannuck]

I hope you realize that I value facts rather than the "consensus" ....

As do I. The facts fully support immunization. I'm just glad people didn't listen to the flat earthers when the polio and small pox vaccines were introduced

 

[Tonington]

Then explain why the public health nurse and a lot of hospital and ambulance staff are refusing to get one?

Perhaps they only got a 51 in immunology.