You are assuming that the flu vaccine is actually going to be for the purported seasonal flu outbreak. The past several years they haven't quite gotten the correct strain down so, yeah, I don't see the need for making something mandatory that actually isn't 100% effective like many people try to make it seem.
Here's an example for you: Up until this year, I would get the flu shot every fall just like a great majority of the people, and guess what? That's right, I would still get the flu. Two years ago it was pretty fucking bad too. I basically had to spend several nights in the bathroom next to the toilet. Another example: every year when we get the shots at work, some of the people request that they are done on a Monday simply for the fact that they know from past experience that they get sick from the shot and they don't like being sick over the weekend. A final example: I roomed with a guy who never would get the flu shot and claimed to never have had the flu since he was a child and I can say for certain he never had it the three years I lived with him despite me having it during that time.
These examples are just several that bring to light the fact that not every single person is the same and forcing vaccines for everyone is too broad a stroke to be painted and that includes health care professionals in my opinion.
Your anecdotal "evidence" seems to be missing the point. For one thing, no one (in any position of authority over these things) claims or believes it's 100% effective. But it doesn't have to be 100% effective to save lives. Secondly, the examples you give are irrelevant since we're talking about the health of an entire population here... not just some guy who doesn't want his weekend to be ruined by the sniffles.
Actually, I think it really is an excellent analogy/question. Are you going to answer it?
No I am not going to answer it. I don't think it is an excellent analogy/question.
That's kind of a cop-out, don't ya think?
I believe at least part of the point is that preventative measures don't have to be 100% effective in order to be considered successful and worthwhile. Do you disagree?
Wow, what excellent debating skills you have there!
the object of the game isn't to change your mind. The goal is to change the audience's mind. I went quad-ruby in National Forensics League back in the day. :ugeek:
Rock me Jesus, roll me Lord...
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
I believe at least part of the point is that preventative measures don't have to be 100% effective in order to be considered successful and worthwhile. Do you disagree?
+1
It's also about "bad science" being foisted upon an ignorant populace. The anti-vaccination crowd is no better than the global warming deniers. If the science doesn't agree with your worldview, deny it. This is how science has become overly politicized in recent years. And they can always find some crank who is more than willing to feed into their delusions.
Rock me Jesus, roll me Lord...
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
You are assuming that the flu vaccine is actually going to be for the purported seasonal flu outbreak. The past several years they haven't quite gotten the correct strain down so, yeah, I don't see the need for making something mandatory that actually isn't 100% effective like many people try to make it seem.
Here's an example for you: Up until this year, I would get the flu shot every fall just like a great majority of the people, and guess what? That's right, I would still get the flu. Two years ago it was pretty fucking bad too. I basically had to spend several nights in the bathroom next to the toilet. Another example: every year when we get the shots at work, some of the people request that they are done on a Monday simply for the fact that they know from past experience that they get sick from the shot and they don't like being sick over the weekend. A final example: I roomed with a guy who never would get the flu shot and claimed to never have had the flu since he was a child and I can say for certain he never had it the three years I lived with him despite me having it during that time.
These examples are just several that bring to light the fact that not every single person is the same and forcing vaccines for everyone is too broad a stroke to be painted and that includes health care professionals in my opinion.
Your anecdotal "evidence" seems to be missing the point. For one thing, no one (in any position of authority over these things) claims or believes it's 100% effective. But it doesn't have to be 100% effective to save lives. Secondly, the examples you give are irrelevant since we're talking about the health of an entire population here... not just some guy who doesn't want his weekend to be ruined by the sniffles.
And you are missing my point in that if there are a few examples going on like this for people I know, you can bet there are many other people that are in similar situations. So, no, my examples are not irrelevant.
You can be degrading to me all you want, but even that guy who doesn't want his weekend ruined by the sniffles still gets immunized, but here's the thing, it's his choice even though he still gets sick from it and then gets others sick from it. My point as I just stated, is that people do get sick from the shot, and it isn't hard to believe that some of those very health care professionals you want to force to get immunized will get sick as well and then you defeat the purpose of preventing them from getting their patients sick.
Actually, I think it really is an excellent analogy/question. Are you going to answer it?
No I am not going to answer it. I don't think it is an excellent analogy/question.
That's kind of a cop-out, don't ya think?
I believe at least part of the point is that preventative measures don't have to be 100% effective in order to be considered successful and worthwhile. Do you disagree?
No, it is not a cop-out. Too many people try to make their arguments personal on this board and I view that questions as no different.
I do agree with what your last statement, however.
It's also about "bad science" being foisted upon an ignorant populace. The anti-vaccination crowd is no better than the global warming deniers. If the science doesn't agree with your worldview, deny it. This is how science has become overly politicized in recent years. And they can always find some crank who is more than willing to feed into their delusions.
And you are missing my point in that if there are a few examples going on like this for people I know, you can bet there are many other people that are in similar situations. So, no, my examples are not irrelevant.
You can be degrading to me all you want, but even that guy who doesn't want his weekend ruined by the sniffles still gets immunized, but here's the thing, it's his choice even though he still gets sick from it and then gets others sick from it. My point as I just stated, is that people do get sick from the shot, and it isn't hard to believe that some of those very health care professionals you want to force to get immunized will get sick as well and then you defeat the purpose of preventing them from getting their patients sick.
First of all, I'm sorry if you thought I was being degrading to you. That wasn't my intention or my sentiment.
My point is not to deny that there are individuals for whom the flu vaccine doesn't work or who get somewhat sick after getting vaccinated. I'm sure you're right about this. My point is that these people have been already been calculated into the risk/benefit analysis of the value of vaccination on the population as a whole, and the fact still remains that vaccination significantly reduces the number of people who die from the flu.
I believe you are saying that mass vaccination of healthcare workers isn't worth it because some people may get sick from the vaccine and then pass that on to their patients, right? But I see two important problems with this argument: 1. WAY fewer people get sick from the vaccine than would have gotten sick without it. 2. For the ones who do get sick, they get a much milder case of the flu that is less likely to kill their patients if they pass it on. As I said, these concerns have already been factored in to the analysis of whether or not vaccination is worthwhile.
I believe at least part of the point is that preventative measures don't have to be 100% effective in order to be considered successful and worthwhile. Do you disagree?
No, it is not a cop-out. Too many people try to make their arguments personal on this board and I view that questions as no different.
isn't the daily mail the UK's equivalent of Fox News/The National Enquirer. I mean, there's a reason they call it "The Daily Fail."
Could be, I'm not certain on that. If so I'm all ears on how what was posted there was a bunch of falsities and lies.
I just opened your link and I think we're talking about two different things here. I thought this thread was about the regular flu vaccine. I didn't have time to read the whole article, so I can't comment about it specifically. I do understand heightened concern about vaccines that haven't been tested as long as others though, which is not to say that I think people should or shouldn't get the H1N1 vaccine.
Does your argument still stand for the seasonal flu vaccine though?
I'm not sure about the swine flu jab, but for seasonal flu, I think most elderly patients are given the vaccine. My mother has worked as an RN in hospitals and nursing homes for 40 years. She always gets the shot, but so do her patients. If the vaccine is really a sort of 'cure' by preventing the disease, then the vaccinated patients have nothing to worry about, yeah?
I'll have to ask mother if her hospital has a swine flu plan. She's in Florida- Plenty of elderly folks there!
If the vaccine is really a sort of 'cure' by preventing the disease, then the vaccinated patients have nothing to worry about, yeah?
I don't think this is accurate. Nothing's 100%, so the more effort that's made to prevent the spread of the flu, the better. Also, plenty of patients aren't vaccinated, so what about them?
i am definitely not a fan of "forced" anything, tho it does seem we already, to some extent, accept this as a society as in - forced vaccinations for children to attend school, random drug testing and/or initial drug testing for certain jobs, etc. sure, there is some choice there.....home-school your kids, don't take the job, etc....but oftentimes that really isn't much of a choice, so sure.....accept the forced issues.
that said, i actually think in certain fields it IS wise to get vaccinations, even outside of the usual recommended age-groups. healthcare workers, educators, etc....it does make sense. funny too, while i taught, i never went for a flu shot. at my current job, i have for 2 years now and i am glad i have. again, i wouldn't like it if it were required, but i don't think i'd quit a good job over it either.
it does seem we already, to some extent, accept this as a society as in - forced vaccinations for children to attend school, random drug testing and/or initial drug testing for certain jobs, etc. sure, there is some choice there.....home-school your kids, don't take the job, etc....but oftentimes that really isn't much of a choice, so sure.....accept the forced issues.
There is no forced vaccination for children to attend school. Parents just need to sign the appropriate waiver that satisfies the state's legal requirements.
Maybe I'm unusual, but I don't "accept the forced issues." I would never willingly have my body fluids morally scrutinised by a potential employer unless it was directly relevant (professional driver, etc.) I've heard people describe how they gave urine samples: With a nurse 2 feet away. That is the exact opposite of dignity.
I've heard people describe how they gave urine samples: With a nurse 2 feet away. That is the exact opposite of dignity.
That doesn't seem right, or necessary. I would've thought that all precautions would be taken to protect your privacy during the testing process. There's no need for anyone to witness you doing the deed, especially the way you describe it, because we are no longer in the dark ages, and technology has been designed to ensure that the sample is fresh and valid, and they can now also detect if there are any masking agents being used.
it does seem we already, to some extent, accept this as a society as in - forced vaccinations for children to attend school, random drug testing and/or initial drug testing for certain jobs, etc. sure, there is some choice there.....home-school your kids, don't take the job, etc....but oftentimes that really isn't much of a choice, so sure.....accept the forced issues.
There is no forced vaccination for children to attend school. Parents just need to sign the appropriate waiver that satisfies the state's legal requirements.
Maybe I'm unusual, but I don't "accept the forced issues." I would never willingly have my body fluids morally scrutinised by a potential employer unless it was directly relevant (professional driver, etc.) I've heard people describe how they gave urine samples: With a nurse 2 feet away. That is the exact opposite of dignity.
my apologies then, i thought there was. i was a teacher and i thought there was. hahaha. eh well.
as to the 'forced issues'...again, it IS your choice, to accept, or to reject. i have taken a drug test once for a job where it was completely irrelevant. while i thought it was rather silly, as did the manager offering me the job, it was the company's policy. i wanted the job, i took the drug test, end of story. my husband works in law enforcement and is open to random drug testing. again, his choice to make. neither of us have ever had to do so with anyone present, etc....that's bizarre! point is, you're right....it is our choice and should be our choice. however, for someone already in a job, a job they enjoy, they trained for, worked at for years....especially in this tight economy......i would imagine it would be a very tough choice to make - get vaccinated and/or drug-tested or lose your job. btw - i don't think you are all that 'unusual' b/c i know of quite a few people who refuse to be drug-tested to get a job. it's definitely a valid choice to make.
That doesn't seem right, or necessary. I would've thought that all precautions would be taken to protect your privacy during the testing process. There's no need for anyone to witness you doing the deed, especially the way you describe it, because we are no longer in the dark ages, and technology has been designed to ensure that the sample is fresh and valid, and they can now also detect if there are any masking agents being used.
Wow... sounds like you've really looked into this!
I guess that my main concern is that I am immune compromised, as I have a disease that is destroying my spinal cord. I do not want to put my patients at risk by not getting the shot...and dr's "think" that it is ok for me to get it. But, I am always a little afraid of what my broken immune system will do with the introduction of this into my system. Since dr's think it is safe for me..I have no grounds not to get the shot, since it is mandatory. I am just trying to preserve my body as long as possible. I have learned to be my own advocate to an extent and get a bit frustrated when I do not have a choice. Does this make sense?
If I knew where it was I would take you there. There's much more than this
I guess that my main concern is that I am immune compromised, as I have a disease that is destroying my spinal cord. I do not want to put my patients at risk by not getting the shot...and dr's "think" that it is ok for me to get it. But, I am always a little afraid of what my broken immune system will do with the introduction of this into my system. Since dr's think it is safe for me..I have no grounds not to get the shot, since it is mandatory. I am just trying to preserve my body as long as possible. I have learned to be my own advocate to an extent and get a bit frustrated when I do not have a choice. Does this make sense?
Makes total sense to me. I think your situation is too complex to necessarily fall under the general principles some of us have been discussing, given that your personal risk is (or may be) higher. Good luck to you!
I found out today that they cannot make the flu shot mandatory. It is not a law. It is a law to get the TB test, but not for the flu shot. Something is just in this world.
If I knew where it was I would take you there. There's much more than this
I found out today that they cannot make the flu shot mandatory. It is not a law. It is a law to get the TB test, but not for the flu shot. Something is just in this world.
Yeah, we discussed this recently at the hospital where I work and I believe someone mentioned that there are only a couple of hospitals in the country that actually require it. Given that we're not one of them, the discussion was about how to best encourage everyone to get vaccinated. Peer pressure seemed to be the best solution we came up with, although at least one person thought even that was too harsh. (This was a meeting of the directors of Labor & Delivery, the Mother-Baby Unit, the NICU, etc.)
I found out today that they cannot make the flu shot mandatory. It is not a law. It is a law to get the TB test, but not for the flu shot. Something is just in this world.
So are you going to get it or did you decide not to?
I found out today that they cannot make the flu shot mandatory. It is not a law. It is a law to get the TB test, but not for the flu shot. Something is just in this world.
So are you going to get it or did you decide not to?
I am still not sure. I see my neurologist in a couple of weeks and am going to talk to him about it. I have IV treatments all next week..so will be pretty burnt out on needles I think. I do like it that it is a choice though.
If I knew where it was I would take you there. There's much more than this
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Even though testing has so far raised no "red flags" regarding safety of potential swine flu vaccines, surveys and focus groups show that healthcare workers and members of the public may be leery of being getting shots when supplies become available this fall.
Writing in the BMJ, Dr. Paul K. S. Chan and associates at the Chinese University of Hong Kong note that "in nearly all countries with a (pandemic) preparedness plan, healthcare workers are listed as the priority group for mass vaccination."
In May of this year when the WHO alert level had been raised to phase 5, meaning a pandemic was imminent, researchers distributed 810 questionnaires to public hospital workers, primarily doctors and nurses in Hong Kong. (The level was later raised to phase 6, pandemic.)
Less than half (48%) of the 389 workers who returned the questionnaires intended to accept pre-pandemic H1N1 vaccination. The most common reason for refusal was potential side effects, followed by questions about the vaccine's efficacy and the conviction that it was "not yet the right time to be vaccinated."
"This is particularly surprising in a city where the SARS outbreak had such a huge impact," Dr. Chan's team points out.
Those with a history of seasonal flu vaccination were more likely to be willing to be vaccinated.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Rachel Jordan, from the University of Birmingham, and Dr. Andrew Hayward, from the University College of London, write that to increase vaccine use, "use of convenient mobile systems, monitoring and feedback systems, and 'opt-out' systems (where healthcare workers need to indicate their reasons for not accepting the vaccine) show promise."
In a separate article published online in the Emerging Health Threats Journal, very few of 85 focus group participants in British Columbia said they would be willing to be vaccinated in the event of a pandemic. Very few people said they or their children would definitely get vaccinated, the authors report.
Many participants were concerned about the risk of infection versus the risks involved in using newly developed vaccines, write Dr. Natalie Henrich of the University of British Columbia and Dr. Bev J. Holmes at Simon Fraser University, both in Vancouver. "Participants were hesitant to use the novel vaccines (due to) concern that unsafe pharmaceuticals may be rushed to market during the health crisis," the authors said.
The focus groups were conducted before the current H1N1 pandemic, in 2006 and 2007.
Instead, many individuals believed they could protect themselves through their own behavior, including frequent handwashing, staying away from crowded places and sick people, and eating well to maintain their immune systems.
In the Pediatrics department of the hospital where I work: Two weeks ago about 5% of the patients were diagnosed with H1N1 flu. The next week (last week) over 50% of the patients had it.
Had a meeting at work yesterday. They said that the flu shot IS mandatory. If anyone refuses it, they will go on a decision making leave and will be fired if they do not decide to get the shot.
If I knew where it was I would take you there. There's much more than this
Legally, I don't think they can say that it is MANDITORY. You can refuse on religeous principles. You don't have to prove you go to a certain church, you can leave it at religeous principles.
I went to college without my measles vaccine. They told me I couldn't go without it (I took the first in the series as a child and was paralized for a few weeks. My mom was told that if I took the next doses I would likely die.) I didn't want to go through the hoopla to get a doctor signature, so I just opted out on religeous reasons.
That being said, I still believe vaccines save thousands of lives. The H1N1 vaccine concerns me because it has not been tested very long (less then a year for the newer doses). With the last month it has been changed from needing 2 doses to only needing one. The CDC has said that H1N1 is mutating but they "believe" that the vaccine will protect against the mutated version. If I am going to shoot live virus into my body, I want some proof.
I am an educator. I am around snaughty kids all the time. If it become mandatory for me to get a shot, I will stay home, and get a union lawyer.
As far as health care providers are concerned, I am much more worried that they will give me MRSA then H1N1.
Comments
Your anecdotal "evidence" seems to be missing the point. For one thing, no one (in any position of authority over these things) claims or believes it's 100% effective. But it doesn't have to be 100% effective to save lives. Secondly, the examples you give are irrelevant since we're talking about the health of an entire population here... not just some guy who doesn't want his weekend to be ruined by the sniffles.
That's kind of a cop-out, don't ya think?
I believe at least part of the point is that preventative measures don't have to be 100% effective in order to be considered successful and worthwhile. Do you disagree?
the object of the game isn't to change your mind. The goal is to change the audience's mind. I went quad-ruby in National Forensics League back in the day. :ugeek:
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
isn't the daily mail the UK's equivalent of Fox News/The National Enquirer. I mean, there's a reason they call it "The Daily Fail."
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
+1
It's also about "bad science" being foisted upon an ignorant populace. The anti-vaccination crowd is no better than the global warming deniers. If the science doesn't agree with your worldview, deny it. This is how science has become overly politicized in recent years. And they can always find some crank who is more than willing to feed into their delusions.
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
And you are missing my point in that if there are a few examples going on like this for people I know, you can bet there are many other people that are in similar situations. So, no, my examples are not irrelevant.
You can be degrading to me all you want, but even that guy who doesn't want his weekend ruined by the sniffles still gets immunized, but here's the thing, it's his choice even though he still gets sick from it and then gets others sick from it. My point as I just stated, is that people do get sick from the shot, and it isn't hard to believe that some of those very health care professionals you want to force to get immunized will get sick as well and then you defeat the purpose of preventing them from getting their patients sick.
No, it is not a cop-out. Too many people try to make their arguments personal on this board and I view that questions as no different.
I do agree with what your last statement, however.
Could be, I'm not certain on that. If so I'm all ears on how what was posted there was a bunch of falsities and lies.
Exactly! Well said.
First of all, I'm sorry if you thought I was being degrading to you. That wasn't my intention or my sentiment.
My point is not to deny that there are individuals for whom the flu vaccine doesn't work or who get somewhat sick after getting vaccinated. I'm sure you're right about this. My point is that these people have been already been calculated into the risk/benefit analysis of the value of vaccination on the population as a whole, and the fact still remains that vaccination significantly reduces the number of people who die from the flu.
I believe you are saying that mass vaccination of healthcare workers isn't worth it because some people may get sick from the vaccine and then pass that on to their patients, right? But I see two important problems with this argument: 1. WAY fewer people get sick from the vaccine than would have gotten sick without it. 2. For the ones who do get sick, they get a much milder case of the flu that is less likely to kill their patients if they pass it on. As I said, these concerns have already been factored in to the analysis of whether or not vaccination is worthwhile.
I don't understand what you mean by that.
So help me understand this then. Your point is that you think just as many people are killed by the flu vaccine as are saved by it?
I just opened your link and I think we're talking about two different things here. I thought this thread was about the regular flu vaccine. I didn't have time to read the whole article, so I can't comment about it specifically. I do understand heightened concern about vaccines that haven't been tested as long as others though, which is not to say that I think people should or shouldn't get the H1N1 vaccine.
Does your argument still stand for the seasonal flu vaccine though?
I'll have to ask mother if her hospital has a swine flu plan. She's in Florida- Plenty of elderly folks there!
I don't think this is accurate. Nothing's 100%, so the more effort that's made to prevent the spread of the flu, the better. Also, plenty of patients aren't vaccinated, so what about them?
that said, i actually think in certain fields it IS wise to get vaccinations, even outside of the usual recommended age-groups. healthcare workers, educators, etc....it does make sense. funny too, while i taught, i never went for a flu shot. at my current job, i have for 2 years now and i am glad i have. again, i wouldn't like it if it were required, but i don't think i'd quit a good job over it either.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
There is no forced vaccination for children to attend school. Parents just need to sign the appropriate waiver that satisfies the state's legal requirements.
Maybe I'm unusual, but I don't "accept the forced issues." I would never willingly have my body fluids morally scrutinised by a potential employer unless it was directly relevant (professional driver, etc.) I've heard people describe how they gave urine samples: With a nurse 2 feet away. That is the exact opposite of dignity.
my apologies then, i thought there was. i was a teacher and i thought there was. hahaha. eh well.
as to the 'forced issues'...again, it IS your choice, to accept, or to reject. i have taken a drug test once for a job where it was completely irrelevant. while i thought it was rather silly, as did the manager offering me the job, it was the company's policy. i wanted the job, i took the drug test, end of story. my husband works in law enforcement and is open to random drug testing. again, his choice to make. neither of us have ever had to do so with anyone present, etc....that's bizarre! point is, you're right....it is our choice and should be our choice. however, for someone already in a job, a job they enjoy, they trained for, worked at for years....especially in this tight economy......i would imagine it would be a very tough choice to make - get vaccinated and/or drug-tested or lose your job. btw - i don't think you are all that 'unusual' b/c i know of quite a few people who refuse to be drug-tested to get a job. it's definitely a valid choice to make.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Wow... sounds like you've really looked into this!
If I knew where it was I would take you there. There's much more than this
Makes total sense to me. I think your situation is too complex to necessarily fall under the general principles some of us have been discussing, given that your personal risk is (or may be) higher. Good luck to you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4SmFxyu ... r_embedded
Interesting, to say the least.
If I knew where it was I would take you there. There's much more than this
Yeah, we discussed this recently at the hospital where I work and I believe someone mentioned that there are only a couple of hospitals in the country that actually require it. Given that we're not one of them, the discussion was about how to best encourage everyone to get vaccinated. Peer pressure seemed to be the best solution we came up with, although at least one person thought even that was too harsh. (This was a meeting of the directors of Labor & Delivery, the Mother-Baby Unit, the NICU, etc.)
So are you going to get it or did you decide not to?
I am still not sure. I see my neurologist in a couple of weeks and am going to talk to him about it. I have IV treatments all next week..so will be pretty burnt out on needles I think. I do like it that it is a choice though.
If I knew where it was I would take you there. There's much more than this
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNe ... healthNews
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Even though testing has so far raised no "red flags" regarding safety of potential swine flu vaccines, surveys and focus groups show that healthcare workers and members of the public may be leery of being getting shots when supplies become available this fall.
Writing in the BMJ, Dr. Paul K. S. Chan and associates at the Chinese University of Hong Kong note that "in nearly all countries with a (pandemic) preparedness plan, healthcare workers are listed as the priority group for mass vaccination."
In May of this year when the WHO alert level had been raised to phase 5, meaning a pandemic was imminent, researchers distributed 810 questionnaires to public hospital workers, primarily doctors and nurses in Hong Kong. (The level was later raised to phase 6, pandemic.)
Less than half (48%) of the 389 workers who returned the questionnaires intended to accept pre-pandemic H1N1 vaccination. The most common reason for refusal was potential side effects, followed by questions about the vaccine's efficacy and the conviction that it was "not yet the right time to be vaccinated."
"This is particularly surprising in a city where the SARS outbreak had such a huge impact," Dr. Chan's team points out.
Those with a history of seasonal flu vaccination were more likely to be willing to be vaccinated.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Rachel Jordan, from the University of Birmingham, and Dr. Andrew Hayward, from the University College of London, write that to increase vaccine use, "use of convenient mobile systems, monitoring and feedback systems, and 'opt-out' systems (where healthcare workers need to indicate their reasons for not accepting the vaccine) show promise."
In a separate article published online in the Emerging Health Threats Journal, very few of 85 focus group participants in British Columbia said they would be willing to be vaccinated in the event of a pandemic. Very few people said they or their children would definitely get vaccinated, the authors report.
Many participants were concerned about the risk of infection versus the risks involved in using newly developed vaccines, write Dr. Natalie Henrich of the University of British Columbia and Dr. Bev J. Holmes at Simon Fraser University, both in Vancouver. "Participants were hesitant to use the novel vaccines (due to) concern that unsafe pharmaceuticals may be rushed to market during the health crisis," the authors said.
The focus groups were conducted before the current H1N1 pandemic, in 2006 and 2007.
Instead, many individuals believed they could protect themselves through their own behavior, including frequent handwashing, staying away from crowded places and sick people, and eating well to maintain their immune systems.
SOURCES: BMJ 2009;339:b3391.
Emerging Health Threats Journal 2009.
Just some food for thought....
If I knew where it was I would take you there. There's much more than this
I went to college without my measles vaccine. They told me I couldn't go without it (I took the first in the series as a child and was paralized for a few weeks. My mom was told that if I took the next doses I would likely die.) I didn't want to go through the hoopla to get a doctor signature, so I just opted out on religeous reasons.
That being said, I still believe vaccines save thousands of lives. The H1N1 vaccine concerns me because it has not been tested very long (less then a year for the newer doses). With the last month it has been changed from needing 2 doses to only needing one. The CDC has said that H1N1 is mutating but they "believe" that the vaccine will protect against the mutated version. If I am going to shoot live virus into my body, I want some proof.
I am an educator. I am around snaughty kids all the time. If it become mandatory for me to get a shot, I will stay home, and get a union lawyer.
As far as health care providers are concerned, I am much more worried that they will give me MRSA then H1N1.