1. Comment #427810 by troyboy on October 29, 2009 at 3:12 am

I'm a firm believer in vaccination too but I hear people say there are some things in them than can make you sick such as mercury for a preservative or something like that??? Sorry I can't remember exactly what it was. Anyways, I would like to hear more about that then just vaccinations are good for you and saves lives.

Other Comments by troyboy

2. Comment #427811 by mordacious1 on October 29, 2009 at 3:15 am

I'd refuse the H1N1 vaccine for my son, if he hadn't died of measles three months ago.
(I stole that from the Onion)

Other Comments by mordacious1

3. Comment #427814 by mordacious1 on October 29, 2009 at 3:19 am

1. Comment #427810 by troyboy

Are you serious? I heard GW Bush planned the attack on the World Trade Center, that doesn't make it true. Do some research on respectable web sites about Thiomersal (the mercury additive).

Other Comments by mordacious1

4. Comment #427815 by Fuller on October 29, 2009 at 3:23 am

I'm a firm believer in vaccination too but I hear people say there are some things in them than can make you sick such as mercury for a preservative or something like that??? Sorry I can't remember exactly what it was. Anyways, I would like to hear more about that then just vaccinations are good for you and saves lives.

Yes, there is a large anti-vaccination movement that make outrageous and false claims about vaccines, for example that there is mercury in them (at a harmful level).

If you'd like to know more about it, this is a good a starting point as any:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1136#more-1136

And you can follow the links from there for further info.

EDIT: great article Paula.

Other Comments by Fuller

5. Comment #427819 by mrjohnno on October 29, 2009 at 3:32 am

Three cheers for Paula

Other Comments by mrjohnno

6. Comment #427823 by c4chaos on October 29, 2009 at 3:53 am

some good articles to chew on:

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jun/06-why-does-vaccine-autism-controversy-live-on/

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-06-03#feature

http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/10/the_atlantic_article_sur_rebut.php

enjoy!

~C

Other Comments by c4chaos

7. Comment #427824 by Nigel on October 29, 2009 at 4:03 am

Awesome work Paula

Other Comments by Nigel

8. Comment #427828 by The_Intangible_Fancy on October 29, 2009 at 4:19 am

There is one difference between vaccination and the other public safety measures mentioned in the article: vaccination alters your body in a way that the others do not. The 'sanctity' of the body has long been a preoccupation of many people, particularly religious ones. Just look at how many people are opposed to organ donation despite knowing that it could save lives. For these people, keeping their rotting corpse intact is more important than helping their fellow humans. It seems like in many cases the justification is religious in nature--after all, if you aren't in one piece when Jesus comes back, how can he resurrect you? It saddens me that people go to such great lengths to make sure that after they die they end up in a really nice box in the ground when they are just going to rot anyway. Such a waste.

Other Comments by The_Intangible_Fancy

9. Comment #427829 by Alternative Carpark on October 29, 2009 at 4:19 am

More excellent words of wisdom for Ms. Kirby.

I hope they are paying you handsomely at the Post.

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

10. Comment #427839 by mmurray on October 29, 2009 at 5:03 am

Anyways, I would like to hear more about that then just vaccinations are good for you and saves lives.

Why would do you expect an article like this to cover every wacky idea anyone has every had about vaccinations ? If you go to an astronomy lecture do you expect to hear why astrology is wrong ?

Anyway a good place to start is

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/

Dr Benway's posts on this site or blog

http://tuftedtitmouse.blogspot.com/

Orac's blog

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

Steven Novella's blog

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/

or you could talk to your doctor I guess and ask them why they are poisoning people with mercury.

I had my shot a couple of weeks ago and I've nearly stopped banging my head on the wall.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

11. Comment #427842 by atp on October 29, 2009 at 5:11 am

There is another difference than the one The_Intangible_Fancy mentions. All the examples in the article requires you to take safety measures when you are doing something that could be potentially dangerous. You always have the option not to drive, not to dump sewage, not to build buildings.

But in order to not take the vaccine, and stay moral, you need to not exist. In the vaccine case it's like the religious doctrine, you are a "sinner" just because you exist. Therefore you need to repent and take the vaccine.

The argument "by not doing as we require, some people suffer for it" can be used in a lot of other situations. For example when it comes to charity; "you have a moral obligation to help cancer victims. By not supporting the case, people will suffer and die."

I am not a huge fan of any argument that makes you a sinner, that makes you guilty or that makes you in debt to society just because you happen to exist. Actually I think such arguments are immoral, because they take away peoples individual liberty and integrity and make them into something similar to ants in an ant hill.

Arguing that it is a good thing for the society that most people take the vaccine, and therefore encouraging people to do so is a good thing. Attacking people and portraying them as immoral for not doing this is in my opinion wrong.

Other Comments by atp

12. Comment #427844 by zengardener on October 29, 2009 at 5:30 am

atp,

...encouraging people to do so is a good thing. attacking people and portraying them as immoral for not doing this is in my opinion wrong.

If someone refuses to get the vaccine, gets sick, and gives it to me before the next batch of injections come around, I will definitely let them hear about it.

Other Comments by zengardener

13. Comment #427852 by atp on October 29, 2009 at 5:52 am

zengardener,

would you let them hear about it for coming to work when sick, or for not taking the vacine?

And if people gets the common cold, and gives it to you, will you let them hear about it for not eating enough vitamin C too?

If someone you know died of cancer, will you go around accusing everyone who has not given money to cancer research?

What is your limit for accusing people for what is part of nature? How much do people owe you just be existing?

Other Comments by atp

14. Comment #427856 by Fuller on October 29, 2009 at 6:08 am

I agree with atp I think. People quite rightly can't be forced to take any vaccine (except when they're too young to decide for themselves...then we can get 'em, heh heh), the best that we can do is spread the correct information/educational material as far as we can, and trust people to make the right choice.

Normally this is enough, but unfortunately right now we're fighting one of the worst anti-scientific medicine movements in recent history. In my opinion it is one of the biggest battles skeptics and rationalists are facing right now. We need to confront anti-vaxers with the full force of our science.

*kapow*

Other Comments by Fuller

15. Comment #427857 by mmurray on October 29, 2009 at 6:27 am

People quite rightly can't be forced to take any vaccine

So what happens in workplaces that hand out the old flu vax. Is that voluntary or `no vax no work' ?

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

16. Comment #427858 by mmurray on October 29, 2009 at 6:29 am

What about

Arguing that it is a good thing for the society that most people don't drive over the allowed blood alcohol limit, and therefore encouraging people to do so is a good thing. Attacking people and portraying them as immoral for not doing this is in my opinion wrong.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

17. Comment #427866 by atp on October 29, 2009 at 7:20 am

mmuray, the difference between examples like your and the vaccine requirement is addressed in the first paragraph of my post.

Driving while drunk is a choice. Being part of the society is not a choice. In the first case you pose a risk because of something you chose to do. In the second case you pose a risk simply because you exist as part of society.

From what I read each person who get the H1N1 will give it to two other people. This means that if 50% or more of the population choose to take the vaccine, there is no risk of uncontrolled spreading. As a society we should be quite safe.

Also from what I read the lethality of the new flu is in the same order as the "old" flu.

It is a good thing that we have the possibility to fight illness. But I think that we still must accept that we are not yet above nature, and that people will die from disease for many years to come.

If you think you got the flu, stay at home. If you still have to go out when sick, consider wearing a mask (in Asian countries people are very good at this). This is avoiding risk behavior.

But accusing people of being immoral for the risk behavior of simply existing in a world where there is illness, I think that is overstepping a limit, is an attack on peoples freedom and integrity and is a sign of hysteria.

Other Comments by atp

18. Comment #427872 by mordacious1 on October 29, 2009 at 7:50 am

atp

If you still have to go out when sick, consider wearing a mask (in Asian countries people are very good at this). This is avoiding risk behavior.

The H1N1 virus is 80 to 120 nanometers in size and will go through your mask like you're not wearing one, unless you're wearing an N-95 respirator (and that probably won't help either) or a hazmat suit. Those Asian people with the masks may feel safer, but they're not.

Other Comments by mordacious1

19. Comment #427875 by atp on October 29, 2009 at 8:03 am

Thanks for the info, mordacious1.

I have an additional question. Are the viruses always free floating, or could they be attached to for example water droplets that could be stopped by a mask?

Related to this, there was a discussion here about sneezing in the elbow (which is encouraged by the Norwegian authorities if you have no better choice). A professor came out and said it was counter productive, because all you did was gathering the viruses in your clothing. And then later when shaking the clothes you would spread the viruses around you. According to him, and if I remember correctly, the viruses can survive four-five days in the clothes like that.

Other Comments by atp

20. Comment #427881 by mmurray on October 29, 2009 at 8:43 am

@atp

Driving while drunk is a choice. Being part of the society is not a choice. In the first case you pose a risk because of something you chose to do. In the second case you pose a risk simply because you exist as part of society.

You are choosing not to have the vaccine. How is that any different to choosing to have it? Once the vaccine exists you have to choose one way or the other. I don't think you do nothing and claim it isn't a choice.

From what I read each person who get the H1N1 will give it to two other people. This means that if 50% or more of the population choose to take the vaccine, there is no risk of uncontrolled spreading. As a society we should be quite safe.

Why is that ? Surely it can spread through the unvaccinated half of the population.

EDIT -- I'm wrong see below.

Also from what I read the lethality of the new flu is in the same order as the "old" flu.

But it is more virulent for young people. There is a good New Scientist article

http://www.newscientist.com/special/swine-flu-myths-that-could-endanger-your-life

which claims

Swine flu is killing young people rather than the very elderly, and although winter is just starting, more young people have already died of flu than normally die over the entire winter.

It is a good thing that we have the possibility to fight illness. But I think that we still must accept that we are not yet above nature, and that people will die from disease for many years to come.

I suspect people will always die. I don't see any reason to do nothing when it is within your power to act in a way that means less people will die.

But accusing people of being immoral for the risk behavior of simply existing in a world where there is illness, I think that is overstepping a limit, is an attack on peoples freedom and integrity and is a sign of hysteria.

Well I disagree as I have said above with the `just existing'. Just existing in a world in which it is possible to be vaccinated is choosing not to be vaccinated.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

21. Comment #427883 by mmurray on October 29, 2009 at 9:04 am

@atp

OK forget my remark above about spreading. I just took a quick wikipedia course in epidemiology

In epidemiology, the basic reproduction number (sometimes called basic reproductive rate or basic reproductive ratio) of an infection is the mean number of secondary cases a typical single infected case will cause in a population with no immunity to the disease in the absence of interventions to control the infection. It is often denoted R_0.

When
R_0 < 1
the infection will die out in the long run (provided infection rates are constant). But if
R_0 > 1
the infection will be able to spread in a population. Large values of R_0 may indicate the possibility of a major epidemic.
Generally, the larger the value of _R0, the harder it is to control the epidemic. In particular, the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to provide herd immunity and prevent sustained spread of the infection is given by

1 - 1/R_0

So it seems like R_0 = 1.75 for H1N1 and hence you have 1 - 4/7 = 3/7 so vaccinating half will do.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

22. Comment #427884 by Jiten on October 29, 2009 at 9:09 am

Scientific medicine has transformed our lives and made the business of living safer, less painful, healthier and consequently longer than it has ever been in the whole course of human history.

You're claiming too much for scientific medicine. It is the provision of clean water, improved nutrition and better working conditions that has transformed our lives and given us the benefits that you claim for scientific medicine.

Other Comments by Jiten

23. Comment #427886 by mmurray on October 29, 2009 at 9:15 am

You're claiming too much for scientific medicine. It is the provision of clean water, improved nutrition and better working conditions that has transformed our lives and given us the benefits that you claim for scientific medicine.

This is not the scientific consensus. Do you have medical expertise of your own or some evidence of why you believe this ?

None of these things would have helped my asthma as a kid, reduced my blood pressure, stopped my glaucoma from making me blind. None of these things would have treated my kid's ear infections.

How come if we have all these things now and vaccination levels drop the disease come back?

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

24. Comment #427890 by hungarianelephant on October 29, 2009 at 9:27 am

A rare Miss by Paula.

The question "Are there valid religious reasons to ...?" begs the answer "no". (On this board, we would probably agree that there are no valid religious reasons for anything.) But this is to put the cart before the horse. We would not ask the question "Are there valid religious reasons for wearing trousers?" It would be taken as axiomatic that those who wanted to wear trousers could do what they liked, unless and until the anti-trouser movement established a satisfactory rationale for a general prohibition of trousers. So first you have to establish a moral imperative to be vaccinated. [EDIT - this is the approach Paula implicitly takes, ignoring the rather stupid question. These comments were not intended to be critical of her in that respect.]

The argument appears to be:
(1) If enough people are vaccinated, the unvaccinated population will be protected (herd immunity).
(2) Therefore everyone ought to get the vaccine.

There's a pretty substantial logical hole in this, as the Hume fans here ought to be quick to point out.

Furthermore: This leads to the conclusion that the moral imperative is greater the less effective the vaccine is. Why so? Because with lower efficacy, you need a higher proportion vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. (I have no idea whether the 80% number is correct - my understanding was that the generally accepted number is in the low 90s - but the specifics aren't what matters.) This is a bizarre result and should give us a clue that something has gone wrong with the reasoning.

Furthermore: In general terms, those who are unvaccinated are those who have chosen to be unvaccinated. So the assertion is that each of those people who have freely chosen not to get the vaccine - and hence take the risk of getting H1N1 - owe a duty to each of the other people who have assumed the same risk to protect them from it. This, clearly, is nonsensical.

As zengardener points out, that last point is not an entirely accurate picture, because not everyone can be vaccinated at the same time. It would be interesting to see projections on this specific. There's also the question of people making choices for their children, and whether this is equivalent to the JWs refusing their kids blood transfusions. But that is an entirely separate argument. It is no more valid to invoke herd immunity when there are children involved than when there are not.

None of this remotely suggests that a public vaccination program is anything but A Good Thing, but Paula's argument goes well beyond that. She has overreached. Though I agree with her observations about general mistrust of scientific medicine. That is surely the more urgent matter to be addressed.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

25. Comment #427895 by moniz on October 29, 2009 at 10:15 am

troyboy

http://antiantivax.flurf.net/

Great site that breaks down what is in the vaccines and why the alarmists are just that, alarmist.

Other Comments by moniz

26. Comment #427897 by Roland_F on October 29, 2009 at 10:18 am

When I remember right – and the info is not screwed from some journalist again - the death toll of H1N1 is smaller (1000 per 1 million infected) than for the ‘regular’ flu (2500 per Million) . And in the main flue season in South America last winter (May-Aug) the H1N1 was replacing the regular flu virus and therefore the overall death toll even decreased.

About the mistrust about vaccination : In Germany the government ( run from the Christian Democratic Union with a evangelical priest daughter as the German chancellor ) was pronouncing the vaccination as a two class enterprise. Politicians and important groups like soldiers and police forces for example should get the better more costly vaccination, the less important rest of the population can use the cheaper riskier vaccination, which could have site effects and is therefore not suitable for children below 3 years or pregnant woman. With this advertisement, there is no wonder that people are not convinced about their need to join the (second class) vaccination.

Other Comments by Roland_F

27. Comment #427900 by rod-the-farmer on October 29, 2009 at 10:41 am

Regarding "refusal" to be vaccinated...I believe many western societies reserve the right to restrain individuals who are infectious, and treat them medically as necessary. Of course this applies only in special cases, but there have been many instances where school boards insist their pupils be vaccinated against certain childhood diseases, or they will be banned from school.

As for me, mea culpa. I have never had a flu shot, and don't intend to get the H1N1 either. I have not heard many people say "I get the shot every year, and never get the flu." On the contrary, I hear more people say they GET the flu after having the shot.

My current lifestyle is one where I don't come into contact with many people other than my spouse, living way out in the country as we do. Anything I get will most likely be brought home TO me.

In over 30 years in the workforce, including multiple international trips, and close contact with hundreds of thousands of individuals, my total time off work due to illness was maybe 20 days, and 5 of those were due to a case of shingles. One could say in that case, I infected myself. A local labour contract is being disputed, where the individual is allowed 16 sick days in a single year, and these can be banked. Good grief.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

28. Comment #427901 by Jiten on October 29, 2009 at 10:47 am

Michael, I'm not denying the benefits that medicine has given us, just that, as I said, Paula was claiming too much for scientific medicine. The contribution of clean water etc. is just as important in getting those benefits that Paula claimed for scientific medicine alone.

Other Comments by Jiten

29. Comment #427907 by Paula Kirby on October 29, 2009 at 11:06 am

Of course clean water was a massive breakthrough too, not least because many diseases are water-borne.

This is a link to one of my favourite cartoons ever. Enjoy!

http://www.cartoonbank.com/2006/Somethings-just-not-right-our-air-is-clean-our-water-is-pure-we-all-get-plenty-of-exercise/invt/129771

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

30. Comment #427913 by keddaw on October 29, 2009 at 11:20 am

The vaccine causes some (very few) people to have medical problems - all vaccines have a couple of people who have bad reactions. If you are an informed (or panicked) adult you have the right to decide which risk is greater, swine flu or having a reaction to the vaccine. However, do you have the right to make that decision for your child? I would say no (and I am a massive libertarian).

I am disappointed at the argument that since society treats people who have an infectious disease or medical emergency without their consent we should treat non-vaccination the same. This is authoritarian to say the least. Adults should have full control and authority over their bodies as long as they're able to make that choice.

Incidentally, people who don't have the vaccine and get the disease will only pass it on to others who didn't have the vaccine, so what's your problem? Herd immunity is only an issue if you limit the numbers given the vaccine, if it's available to all then it's your choice to expose yourself to the risk of infection. It's not even like it's all that deadly, 1 in 1,000 die? Those are odds I can live with (but I'd take the vaccine if it was available as it's at least an order of magnitude safer. But that's MY choice.)

Other Comments by keddaw

31. Comment #427917 by mmurray on October 29, 2009 at 11:43 am

Incidentally, people who don't have the vaccine and get the disease will only pass it on to others who didn't have the vaccine, so what's your problem? Herd immunity is only an issue if you limit the numbers given the vaccine, if it's available to all then it's your choice to expose yourself to the risk of infection. It's not even like it's all that deadly, 1 in 1,000 die? Those are odds I can live with (but I'd take the vaccine if it was available as it's at least an order of magnitude safer. But that's MY choice.)

How old are you ? Young people are more likely to die as there seemed to be something similar to the H1N1 around in the 50s. Also in Australia I think some pregnant women got extreme symptoms.

Kind of a moot point it you can't get the vaccine anyway I guess. Where are you ? Australia are vaccinating everybody.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

32. Comment #427918 by mmurray on October 29, 2009 at 11:49 am

@Jiten

Michael, I'm not denying the benefits that medicine has given us, just that, as I said, Paula was claiming too much for scientific medicine. The contribution of clean water etc. is just as important in getting those benefits that Paula claimed for scientific medicine alone.

Well you actually said in your second sentence

It is the provision of clean water, improved nutrition and better working conditions that has transformed our lives and given us the benefits that you claim for scientific medicine.

*The* benefits not *some* of the benefits. Maybe you didn't mean it like that. It is a pretty standard anti-vax line you see a lot that vaccines have done nothing it is *all* down to nutrition and public health so that was how I read it.

I agree of course that clean water was an amazing breakthrough still badly needed in so many parts of the world.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

33. Comment #427919 by Corylus on October 29, 2009 at 11:59 am

Comment #427913 by keddaw:

Incidentally, people who don't have the vaccine and get the disease will only pass it on to others who didn't have the vaccine, so what's your problem?

There are two assumptions in this statement that I would question.

1)The assumption that vaccines provide 100% cover rather than very, very significantly reduce risk.

Collateral damage is a possibility here and makes the issue more complicated.

2) The assumption that if someone has not been vaccinated we should not care about them.

Remember, people can be unvaccinated for all manner of reasons (i.e. recent immigration form a country where this vaccine is not provided, low supplies of vaccines, listening to scaremongering etc. to name just a few). If someone takes a course of action (or inaction) that I disagree with it does not automatically follow that I should stop caring about their welfare as a result.

Other Comments by Corylus

34. Comment #427925 by grassdog on October 29, 2009 at 12:28 pm

Coming from Africa it concerns me that a debate between 'informed' people in the First World can have such a negative impact on public health in my part of the World.

Questioning whether or not you or your child should have this specific vaccination publically leads to people here assuming that you are questioning the validity of vaccination.

This may be an unintended spin off of this public debate, but it has very negative repercussions in parts of the World that still suffer from the diseases that vaccinations help so much with and which your societies by and large, no longer have to deal with.

Paula's comments are in no way 'authoritarian' given the Global nature of the problem.

Other Comments by grassdog

35. Comment #427927 by keddaw on October 29, 2009 at 12:35 pm

@Corylus
Care about people's welfare by all means, it's the decent thing to do but never force your 'care' onto people against their wishes. Offer the vaccine to people coming into your country, test them as well (so they don't carry the disease into your country).

My assumptions are relatively mild, and I disagree with your second one.

Anyway, the human race hasn't had a decent amount of natural selection in a while. Time to cull the genetically inferior (and by inferior I mean those who succumb to H1N1).

@Michael
Age? What does age have to do with it? If young people are more likely to get infected, or more likely to die, then offer them the vaccine first. If they're under the age of consent give them the vaccine. Pregnant women likewise.

Location? UK. I haven't been offered a vaccination yet, and won't be as far as I know. Only those who have a likelihood of coming into contact with the disease are being offered it.

The over-reaction to this disease is understandable, we are over-due a global pandemic, but as soon as it was shown to be relatively benign people should have calmed down and the media should leave the story alone.

Other Comments by keddaw

36. Comment #427928 by PrimeNumbers on October 29, 2009 at 12:42 pm

The major issue I have here in Canada is that the exact vaccine adjuvant being used seems to have very little testing. The FDA have not approved the adjuvant used. We currently have no vaccine in Canada for those allergic to eggs.

The adjuvant being used doesn't have FDA approval, although is approved in Europe.

The officials here are basically just saying "trust us", but I'd much prefer them to be saying "look - here's the clinical trials, here's the data", but that needed response is highly lacking.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

37. Comment #427929 by Crazycharlie on October 29, 2009 at 12:43 pm

This whole vaccine "debate" doesn't make me wonder about the safety or effectiveness of vaccines. It makes me wonder why the human mind can just toss aside rationality and common sense so easily. The simple fact is a very large number of the people who are against vaccination or just concerned about its safety wouldn't be alive if they hadn't been vaccinated when they were children.

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

38. Comment #427930 by PERSON on October 29, 2009 at 12:44 pm

This is pretty bloody funny.

11. Comment #427842 by atp on October 29, 2009 at 5:11 am
"You always have the option not to drive, not to dump sewage, not to build buildings."
If you don't commute, don't have a toilet and live in a cave(*), certainly.
The fact is, it's easier to be careless about how you do all of these things, and to neglect what is required. That would also make you a "sinner", though your use of that word is plainly rhetorical.

35. Comment #427927 by keddaw on October 29, 2009 at 12:35 pm
"Anyway, the human race hasn't had a decent amount of natural selection in a while. Time to cull the genetically inferior (and by inferior I mean those who succumb to H1N1)."
Are you serious? Will you be ready to expose yourself (and, FSM help them, your loved ones) to H1N1 to make sure you're up to scratch? I don't just mean take a risk. To follow through your logic, you would need to ensure you became infected. Or do you feel different standards apply to other people?

(*) Assuming that erecting buildings is equivalent to having someone do it for you.

Other Comments by PERSON

39. Comment #427934 by vicars_daughter on October 29, 2009 at 1:05 pm

#427900 Rod

I have not heard many people say "I get the shot every year, and never get the flu." On the contrary, I hear more people say they GET the flu after having the shot.

I get the flu shot every year and never get the flu. (Seven years and counting).

Plus, the flu vac is made up of DEAD viruses. You can't get flu from the vaccine. You may get flu like symptoms as your body's immune system reacts to the virus but chances are, if you get proper flu after the shot, it was either in your system already or a different strain to the vaccine.

I had my seasonal flu jab yesterday and the worst symptom I have is a slightly sore arm. I'll be going for my pandemic flu jab in a few weeks time.

[Edited for clarity and spelling!]

Other Comments by vicars_daughter

40. Comment #427941 by Linda Ward Selbie on October 29, 2009 at 1:42 pm

Yesterday I had lunch with a friend who is refusing to take the free vaccine for herself or child. She cited the usual contra comments. I had to remind her that her father-in-law was infected with polio because he wasn't vaccinated and while surviving, lived his life in a wheelchair.

It is quite difficult to avoid becoming infected with some degree of Swine Flu unless of course taking the drastic action of moving into a cave and avoiding all contact. Many who are sick will not develop severe respiratory illness and die. Taking the vaccine helps prevent the spread of disease. It is rather a common sense, common good action.

VACCINE SKEPTICS

p.s. I too have accepted Dawkins' challenge to use my real.

Other Comments by Linda Ward Selbie

41. Comment #427942 by Border Collie on October 29, 2009 at 1:46 pm

Intangible ... Yep, sanctity of the body has been and is a big issue. We wouldn't want those vaccines in there rearranging our immune system, now would we? Thus, it always seemed a little odd to me that those same people will smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol and eat fried banana peanut butter sandwiches and never give it a second thought.

Other Comments by Border Collie

42. Comment #427943 by Celandine on October 29, 2009 at 1:57 pm

In some circumstances I think it IS ethical not to take the H1N1 vaccine. For one thing, there isn't enough of it for everyone. If I am at relatively low risk, isn't it more ethical for me to let someone at higher risk receive the vaccine instead?

Other Comments by Celandine

43. Comment #427946 by hungarianelephant on October 29, 2009 at 2:05 pm

34. Comment #427925 by grassdog

Questioning whether or not you or your child should have this specific vaccination publically leads to people here assuming that you are questioning the validity of vaccination.

What exactly are you suggesting? That because some people have reading comprehension problems, we should shut down debate?

Paula's comments are in no way 'authoritarian' given the Global nature of the problem.

I can't understand what you are saying here. If you compel the residents of Swindon to take a particular medical treatment with the stated objective of promoting the health of all the residents of Swindon, then the measure is either authoritarian or it is not. It is surely precisely as authoritarian (or not) if that is extended to the whole of Wiltshire, or England, or the world.

(Paula hasn't actually made the jump from moral imperative to legal imperative, to be clear. But it's never long before someone else does.)

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

44. Comment #427963 by Enlightenme.. on October 29, 2009 at 3:06 pm

Can someone remind me how you find the other respondents to this Washington post 'on faith' question?

At least this one does have the Q posed in italics at the top.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

45. Comment #427999 by Lucas on October 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm

Slam dunk again for our hero Paula Kirby. But let me raise the following question.

I am soon to return to living in Manhattan from a relatively mellow midwest exile. There are 1.6 million people on that 33.8 square mile (87.5 km) island. I will be riding the 200% overstuffed subway system with these people. I read an article in the NYT yesterday that said that only about half the parents of schoolchildren in NYC are allowing their children to be vaccinated. Does this mean that they are knowingly allowing their children to be disease carriers? And that they are knowingly putting the rest of us, who must share scant breathing space for sometimes up to an hour with these children, at risk? And doesn't that put their own children at even more risk?

To be honest, I don't fear the H1N1. I think my body can handle it. But I don't relish the idea of being sick, and I sure don't want to be the one who passes it on to a child or elderly person that dies. If there is a moral imperative to vaccinate ourselves and be part of the 80%, isn't that imperative even greater in the largest population center on the continent? In fact, isn't purposefully not vaccinating your children in NYC somewhat akin to manslaughter, if not straight up murder?

Other Comments by Lucas

46. Comment #428026 by A guy named Joe on October 29, 2009 at 5:57 pm

I've gotten the seasonal flu vaccine, waiting for H1N1. Planning on my kids getting the vaccines. I have 2 patients with AIDP/Guillain-Barre from the seasonal vaccine.

Makes you think twice. I have a hard time faulting someone for not getting the vaccine.

Other Comments by A guy named Joe

47. Comment #428046 by mordacious1 on October 29, 2009 at 6:56 pm

46. Comment #428026 by A guy named Joe

I have 2 patients with AIDP/Guillain-Barre from the seasonal vaccine.

From this article:


http://www.jsmarcussen.com/gbs/uk/incidence.htm

There is as yet no direct proof of any connection, and the issue of whether or not vaccinations are linked to an increased risk of getting GBS is under intense debate.

Other Comments by mordacious1

48. Comment #428133 by jrod0725 on October 30, 2009 at 12:13 am

At least someone gets it!

http://www.independent.ie/health/vitamin-d-might-lessen-your-flu-risk-1924363.html

Twice as likely to get swine flu if you get the seasonal flu shot?

"There are a large number of authors, all of them excellent and credible researchers," he said. "The sample size is very large, at 12 or 13 million people."

Other Comments by jrod0725

49. Comment #428135 by Mark Jones on October 30, 2009 at 12:30 am

Comment #428133 by jrod0725

Whilst no-one can deny that problems can arise with vaccinations, are you seriously suggesting that health policy should be decided on one unpublished, un-peer reviewed study?

See this:

So far, no one else had found similar data. That should be a "red flag" that there is something wrong with the findings, experts said. Perhaps there is a statistical problem, a study bias or some other methodological problem that will become apparent only when the paper is subjected to intense analysis.

Health policy should preferably be determined by meta-analyses, not single studies, however large the sample size. Sample size is *not* the hallmark of a reliable study.

EDIT: It's also important to understand what 'twice as likely' means from the data. It's not always as simple as that sounds. No-one can judge until the data has been scrutinised.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

50. Comment #428136 by jrod0725 on October 30, 2009 at 12:33 am

Comment #428135 by Mark Jones

Maybe you should go run Canada since you have the answers. How dare those government bureaucrats put their people at risk!

Other Comments by jrod0725