This year was the first time I have been offered the jab by my doctors (I moved house and Dr's surgery), took it without a second though. I would imagine giving everyone the flu jab is cheaper than dealing with only a few older people being really ill. My employer offered it free, I took the Dr's offer it was amazingly convenient and low risk (compared to a hour round trip, sitting in the office waiting to get stabbed, having to touch stuff and sign in ect). My Dr's gave you a time (I had 11.24am, my wife 11.25am) you turned up at a converted shop in the local shopping center at that time, saw a nurse who checked I wasn't allergic to eggs, stabbed me and I left. Took me longer to take my fleece off, than any other part of the process. Overall a very easy process.
I've had proper dose of flu once and I absolutely agree, it's horrible. I was buggered for a fortnight, it's really unpleasant. Also, a cold is amost certain not to make you very ill, flu kills.
I have the flu jab every year as I'm deemed to be at risk as I have asthma. What the doctors don't seem to mention much is the fact you can have the jab and still end up with flu. I knew this but some folks I know didn't. They make the vaccine from a selection of strains they think will be prevalent that year, not all known or new strains. I ended up with the flu a few months after the jab, the first time I've ever had flu and it knocked me sideways and down the stairs for good measure!! I still have the jab though, any protection offered is better than none!!
In part due to the fact that it's only protecting against a subset of the strains, the efficacy rate of the jab is only 59%.
I think the efficacy rate of disco biscuits is higher than that, even though I'm told they're made in uncontrolled environments.
Maybe because I'm not considered to be at risk, I'm saving the flu jab resources for those who actually need it, bearing in mind there are consistent availability issues in my area. Maybe I want to give my immune system a chance to strengthen itself naturally, as it's been trying to do for many thousands of years. Hell, maybe I can't afford it but also can't get it for free. And then of course, maybe I'm just "me-me-me". But hey ho. Take everything literally and/or as fits one's own individual argument and let's definitely focus on differences of opinion in grammar, delivery or word usage. I think most people here will recognise that the term "anti-vax" where I deployed it was being used to reference the placard-waving conspiracist movement, not a query around one particular brand-new jab, despite the dictionary definition of such, which will no doubt now be quoted or linked to. I wasn't intending to reply. I've tried discussing and questioning in what I thought was an open and adult manner, but I've seen a different side to certain people on here since I did and lost a whole heap of respect for them. Sometimes people just have to be right and sadly, that much is evident in their posts across the site. For the record, I have had plenty of vaccinations as have the family, most of which have been govt-recommended. I do also agree with the view that the "many who can" being vaccinated protects the "few who can't", even though 80%* of the recent posts above refer to having the flu jab to protect oneself, not to prevent it spreading. I merely had a very simple original (point? Question?) regarding this one particular COVID shot that has been neatly sidestepped and turned into semantics. I've not criticised anyone else's viewpoint or intention to vaccinate, even though other viewpoints are very obviously being jammed down my throat (or into my arm) as being the ONLY correct way to behave. So in fact, we are now exhibiting the "forced vaccination" (by social proxy?) attitude that I was told earlier "literally no-one has mentioned". You're right, I'm wrong. Oh - and selfish to boot. I'll leave it at that, because that's the way we all know it has to turn out for there to be balance in the universe and the forum. But it was nice discussing with the constructive few. I'll be turning Squadrons off, underclocking my CPU this week and looking at the wall, so I can save up £7.50 from the electricity I won't be using. *Disclaimer: not a scientifically or mathematically-proven figure, CBA
Yay, let's argue disingenuously again and then claim victimisation when you can't support your own arguments! Fun, these are the best! Define 'disco biscuit', please. Once you've done so, define exactly which constituent ingredients are in every available variant of 'disco biscuit' - and I'm not just talking about the primary psychoactive ingredient - and then send me a link to the research which demonstrates that 'the efficacy rate of disco biscuits is higher than [59%]'. While you do that, here's a list of the actual flu vaccines that will be in use for the 2020-2021 flu season. I'm sure you can find out what's in each of these flu vaccines, and supporting research, with very little effort - I found this information with practically zero effort Quadrivalent Fluenz Fluarix Influvac sub-unit Flucelvax Adjuvanted Trivalent Influenza Vaccine Source: https://www.healthpublications.gov.uk/ViewArticle.html?sp=Sfluvaccinesforthe2020to2021seasonposter This is the appeal to nature fallacy. It's also, in general, exactly what vaccines do: introduce an inert, attenuated, modified, etc, version of a foreign or hostile organism to stimulate your immune system into creating defences against it. It's functionally identical to making your kids get chickenpox at a young age so they can't get it again later in life. Which point was that, exactly? Because I've skimmed the last dozen or so pages of this thread and the first post of yours I can find on the subject of vaccines was: Which, I'm sure you recall, we discussed. Or was the point in question this, perhaps? Because, as I'm sure you recall, that was also discussed. So you'll forgive me for wondering exactly what you think has been side-stepped here. This is a complete straw-man argument. Please enlighten me as to where - whether it's in this forum or elsewhere - anyone ever seriously suggested forced vaccinations, irrespective of individual choice, as a serious policy that should be implemented? I'm sorry you feel threatened or targeted by people discussing vaccination, but literally no one is forcing you to get a flu vaccine or a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Most of this post is a deliberate misrepresentation; it's utterly disingenuous, and it's utterly frustrating because it contributes nothing to the discussion except noise.
If the Oxford vaccine passes all its hurdles i'll be pretty confident in having it. The others, notsomuch, but that's solely down to me knowing that the Oxford one is designed on tried and tested methodology. The others I know little about and so, obviously, my confidence can't be as high until I do know more. But yeah, long term effects - even if covid doesn't kill you/others we do know that it can have long term health implications for those who suffer very 'mild' cases at the outset. So roll up that arm sleeve. Some of the crap in YT discussions are stupid, I don't know why I read them. Joe Bloggs reckoning don't believe the scientists but believe him and his science 'knowledge' that as it's based on a weak cold virus and he's had a cold he's safe... I mean, give me strength.
In what way does the analogy I used support anti-scientific and anti-vaccine conclusions? Since you believe you would first have to be a computer for the analogy to work, how about you share one with us that works for you? I appreciate the link It clarified why government hasn't shut her business down but instead handed out fines as if they were speeding tickets. She's been a busy girl racking them up. The immune system has been its own teacher and student from day one, it has done a pretty good job thus far.
True enough but vaccination has helped hunanity through the years. Vaccinations just help the immune system help itself, they prepare them much like playing a game in easy mode before attempting death march.
Welcome to the internet, where 5 mins of listening to a wackjob on youtube while on the can, means i can argue with your decades of experience on a given subject
I'm in work right now, snatching time between meetings, so not full replies. Which day in our millions of years of evolution would you consider to be 'day one'? Just curious... Also, again, this is the appeal to nature fallacy. Good luck with relying on just your immune system by the way. I hope you're not relying on unnatural things like soap, cleaning products, antibacterials, etc. If your immune system is all you need then you don't need those things, right?
Just as fun is the quote for quote point scoring BS that takes place on forums - eventually reducing useful threads into toxic slanging matches. Thank heavens that doesn't happen here, eh?
I remember you saying this some time ago elsewhere (or was it in someone's sig?). That's why I gave up and let him have his minute, mate. CBA trawling the thread to counter his half-argued, selectively-edited post. I prefer the more well-constructed commentary from others - and things like Adidan's random one-liners: Just be careful with analogies, they have the ability to confuse some... Might be worth checking the reasons behind this, though: There were a lot more death-inducing factors back then, not just immune-related. Like poor labour conditions, poor hygiene, child labour, murder, neglect, even war/pillaging etc.. The immune system is good, but it's not a protect-all BFG power-up. There's probably also some value in differentiating between natural vs man-made/human-induced factors. I daresay the many years of immune evolution would still find it tough to cope with some things that are suddenly thrust upon it unnaturally, hence why a combination of these two is probably a fair summary:
What? I'm saying that the immune system isn't perfect and that's why vaccination is important, something we didn't used to have. You're saying that I failed to take into account the child murders and "war/pillaging" of the 19th Century in England in the reduction in child mortality by two orders of magnitude?
No, I'm saying you haven't taken into account the reduction in the other factors alongside the introduction of vaccines as both having an impact in the order of magnitude decrease. Edit: it would probably be more accurate if one in three died as a result of something a vaccine then prevented/eradicated, leading to the improvement.
There may be crossed wires with your other post - it looked as if walle was saying the immune system is doing okay and you responded with the fact it wasn't because of the high death rate.
