Flu Flim Flam's First Victim

Benguin said:
wave a magnetically aligned crystal over the tap?

I'm all for flourine ... I don't see what the beef is about that.

I actually react to chlorine (in a swimming pool context) but tap water has no effect, there is hardly any there, and if you want rid of it it is as easy as pouring a jug full and leaving it in the fridge a few hours for the chlorine to evaporate. So I'm told. Forgive me if I just woo-ed ...

In many city systems, the chlorine is removed from the water before it gets to your house, or greatly reduced. Even the highest concentrations are tiny. Guidelines for water purification from an unclean source (i.e.-a pond) range from 5 ppm (parts per million) if the water is clear to 15ppm if it's opaque. For public systems starting with water that has been processed a residual of 1 ppm is all that is required to maintain it as clean.
 
Tony said:
How is it a fallacy? Look at the facts:

1.I have never had the flu or the flu shot.

2. People I have known who got the shot ended up getting the flu.

3. In my experience, the flu shot has a bad track record.


Now, please point out the fallacy.


The "in my experience" bit itself is a fallacy. From the scientific point of view, your experience does not matter unless it is supported by well-documented data. Do you have results of a randomised control trial supporting your claim?

edited for typo
 
It was reported yesterday that it had been hoped that some of the condemned vaccine stock might still prove to be usable, and tests were undertaken to see if any of it could be salvaged. However, no joy. Turned out that the whole lot was a bust and had to be dumped.

This is of course in the category of "sh!t happens", and demonstrates that at least the regulatory and quality assurance systems are working, and potentially dangerous product didn't get as far as the patients. Nevertheless, there will be some way for Rouser to spew his anti-medicine bile, never fear.

Rolfe.
 
I don't quite understand why someone who is young, fit, healthy and with a good immune system would want to bother having a flu vaccination? I can understand the very young, the very old and those with chronic diseases having vaccinations and I can see the point in this very much.

The way I look at it is that I am still young, fit and healthy, so by not having a flu vaccine, there is more for those that really need it. The last time I had a proper dose of flu was about 30 years ago. No kidding either. Yes, I have had bad colds in between, but not flu.

Surely, if you have a good immune system and are young, fit, active and healthy, then you don't need a flu jab.

I won't be having one!! :D
 
Argument from ignorance. The flu bug does not care how fit or young you are, you can still get sick enough to end up with secondary infections and things like pneumonia. You have less chance of dying, but you still get very sick. You can try avoiding other humans and washing your hands a lot, but if you get the bug, you will get sick unless you've had it before or got the vaccine.

If you are around people who are susceptible you can stop the spread of the disease by getting vaccinated.
.(1) Pneumonia accounts for nearly 600,000 Medicare patient hospitalizations utilizing more than 4.5 million inpatient days each year.(1,2) In 1993, more than $3.5 billion was spent on inpatient care of Medicare patients with pneumonia.(3) Pneumonia also is the principal reason for more than 500,000 emergency department visits by Medicare patients each year.(2) The incidence of pneumonia increases with age, and more than 90 percent of deaths due to this condition are in the population aged 65 and older.(1,4,5).
http://www.stratishealth.org/health-care/inpatient-immunization.html

1997 rates for Influenza/Flu hospitalization in NY City

These are the people that ended up in hospital, not just the ones the got sick.

10 - 17 year olds 56.4/100,000 (396)

18 - 24 year olds 68.8/100,000 (420)

25 - 44 year olds 172.7/100,000 (4, 251)

44- 65 year olds 336.1/100,00 (5, 293 people)

It's hard to get stats on how many people were sick, but easy to find out how many people ended up hospitalized after getting sick. Extrapolate these figures to the whole of USA, and that's a lot of people every year in the hospital.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/data/chau-appa.pdf
 
Sarah-I said:
I don't quite understand why someone who is young, fit, healthy and with a good immune system would want to bother having a flu vaccination? I can understand the very young, the very old and those with chronic diseases having vaccinations and I can see the point in this very much.

The way I look at it is that I am still young, fit and healthy, so by not having a flu vaccine, there is more for those that really need it. The last time I had a proper dose of flu was about 30 years ago. No kidding either. Yes, I have had bad colds in between, but not flu.

Surely, if you have a good immune system and are young, fit, active and healthy, then you don't need a flu jab.

I won't be having one!! :D
Good Lord! Sarah said something sensible!

However, one of the reasons for someone young, fit and healthy getting the vaccine is because they are healthcare workers, who need to be able to work with flu victims and not catch it, and (just as important) not pass it on to other patients.

What is it you're doing with yourself at the moment, Sarah?

Rolfe.

Edited to add: Eos, what Sarah said is perfectly sensible. Young fit and healthy people aren't called for flu vaccinations, and they won't get them free in this country. It's just that there are some exceptions, and Sarah keeps telling us that she's in one of the obvious exception categories.
 
For sure, but if I had the choice, I would avoid it and get the vaccine. If there was enough vaccine to go around, younger folks still have to pay. It costs about $25/person here.

Why would someone young, fit, and healthy get the vaccine? Because you're still going to get sick, and you're still going to feel like crap if you get it. Just because you're young, etc, it doesn't mean you won't end up hospitalized in x amount of cases. That costs the system a lot of money. Cheaper to get the vaccine.

You have less chance of ending up in hospital, and less chance of dying, but the bug will still make you sick.

Wash your hands whenever possible, and you lessen your chances of getting it even more.
 
Sarah-I said:
I don't quite understand why someone who is young, fit, healthy and with a good immune system would want to bother having a flu vaccination? I can understand the very young, the very old and those with chronic diseases having vaccinations and I can see the point in this very much.

The way I look at it is that I am still young, fit and healthy, so by not having a flu vaccine, there is more for those that really need it. The last time I had a proper dose of flu was about 30 years ago. No kidding either. Yes, I have had bad colds in between, but not flu.

Surely, if you have a good immune system and are young, fit, active and healthy, then you don't need a flu jab.

I won't be having one!! :D
Well, that's very noble, but perhaps rather silly too. Soldiers don't head into battle naked these days - they wear all the armour they can reasonably carry, and for very good reason. Certainly you may think you are more likely to be able to withstand the effects of flu if you are young and healthy, but it is no picnic at any age, as Eos has pointed out.

Consider, for example, your own susceptibility to the virus. You may be one of those unfortunate people for whom, despite their youth and vigour, the flu virus is an awful or even tragic experience. You may get hospitalised, for all you know. Sure, last year's strain of the flu virus may have been shaken off with a lemon-and-honey tea, but this year's may be much more devastating. And even just running the course of a flu infection probably means you are off work - you suffer, your work suffers - it costs money to be sick, and not just to pay the medical bills.

Or if you battle on and turn up in the workplace while sick, you may easily pass the flu virus on to more susceptible people there, including elderly people and possibly even pregnant women. If not protected, their sicknesses can greatly affect work productivity, not to mention their personal discomfort and expenses.

Sarah, you said you are a medical practioner of some sort, a person who personally examines lots of different people daily, young and old, in close proximity. You having the flu in such a position would be unnecessarily exposing those people who are already sick to the likelihood of additional debilitating illness. Do you think that's an ethical thing to do?

So remember, the flu vaccine significantly reduces the risks of these things happening.

If it makes any difference, I won't be having a flu vaccine either, but not because I don't want it. Simply, I am allergic to the medium on which they make the vaccine, and I would go into shock if I was injected with it. Otherwise I would be lining up too. As it is, I have to suffer through the winter season being VERY careful not to get near flu-carriers...like you might be.
 
Zep said:
If it makes any difference, I won't be having a flu vaccine either, but not because I don't want it. Simply, I am allergic to the medium on which they make the vaccine, and I would go into shock if I was injected with it. Otherwise I would be lining up too. As it is, I have to suffer through the winter season being VERY careful not to get near flu-carriers...like you might be.

In other words, your only chance of being spared 'flu is herd immunity ...
 
Rouser2 said:
Modern Medicine is not interested in your real life experiences. The official statistics prove that your reality, is make-believe.
"Modern Medicine" has to be interested in everyone's real life experience, not just Tony's. Hence the use of statistics. The statistics don't "prove that [Tony's] reality, is make-believe," merely that it is not representative of the population as a whole.

To use an analogy, I recently walked across a road without looking (I was thinking about something else at the time) and didn't get hit by a car. Does this mean that the government shouldn't run road safety campaigns?
 
Originally posted by Mojo [/i]

>>"Modern Medicine" has to be interested in everyone's real life experience, not just Tony's. Hence the use of statistics. The statistics don't "prove that [Tony's] reality, is make-believe," merely that it is not representative of the population as a whole.


What Tony's experience should suggest is the dubious nature of government statistics.
 
Tony said:
Now, please point out the fallacy.

Nobody I know has ever been bitten by squirrels. Therefore, squirrels don't bite.

I've never seen a pigeon die. Have you? No, see, they are immortal.

Don't be obtuse.
 
Rouser2 said:
Originally posted by Mojo [/i]

>>"Modern Medicine" has to be interested in everyone's real life experience, not just Tony's. Hence the use of statistics. The statistics don't "prove that [Tony's] reality, is make-believe," merely that it is not representative of the population as a whole.


What Tony's experience should suggest is the dubious nature of government statistics.

1) Sample size of thousands shows in general X
2) Sample size of 1 shows Y

Case 1 is obviously worthless as case 2 is proof of a conspiracy theory :rolleyes:
 
Rouser2 said:
Originally posted by Mojo [/i]

>>"Modern Medicine" has to be interested in everyone's real life experience, not just Tony's. Hence the use of statistics. The statistics don't "prove that [Tony's] reality, is make-believe," merely that it is not representative of the population as a whole.


What Tony's experience should suggest is the dubious nature of government statistics.

No. It does by that statement, however, highlight your poor grasp of statistics.
 
Rouser2 said:
What Tony's experience should suggest is the dubious nature of government statistics.
No, it doesn't. Statistics are not used to make predictions about individual cases: they predict the behaviour of large populations.

So, for example, statistics don't predict that if Tony doesn't have the flu jab he will get flu; they predict that if nobody has a flu jab then X% of the population will get flu.
 
Stitch said:
1) Sample size of thousands shows in general X
2) Sample size of 1 shows Y

Case 1 is obviously worthless as case 2 is proof of a conspiracy theory :rolleyes:

Sample size of thousands is put out by a cabal of vested interests which has been often found to be based on dishonest research and reporting, while the sample size of 1 may be reported by a person with no vested interest but a track record of integrity. The lesson is, weigh both in the balance, but trust no one.
 
Mojo said:
No, it doesn't. Statistics are not used to make predictions about individual cases: they predict the behaviour of large populations.

So, for example, statistics don't predict that if Tony doesn't have the flu jab he will get flu; they predict that if nobody has a flu jab then X% of the population will get flu.

In the great Swine Flu panic of the 70s, if nobody had gotton the flu shot, there would have been zero deaths and paralysis from it.
 
Rouser2 said:
In the great Swine Flu panic of the 70s, if nobody had gotton the flu shot, there would have been zero deaths and paralysis from it.

During the 1918-1919 fall period the number of Americans who died from influenza is estimated at 675,000. Of those, almost 200,000 deaths were recorded in the month of October 1918 alone.

http://www.ninthday.com/spanish_flu.htm

I don't know why I try to convince someone who is completely incapable of grasping the concept of "preventive medicine" let alone reality.

-TT
 
Originally posted by ThirdTwin [/i]


>>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the 1918-1919 fall period the number of Americans who died from influenza is estimated at 675,000. Of those, almost 200,000 deaths were recorded in the month of October 1918 alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ninthday.com/spanish_flu.htm

>>I don't know why I try to convince someone who is completely incapable of grasping the concept of "preventive medicine" let alone reality.

And strangely, this pandemic came just after mass vaccinations came into common practice during WW I.
 

Back
Top Bottom