State takes away rights of parents again

[Icycle]

I do not vaccinate my son for the flu for several reasons.

The flu vaccine difers from year to year and is only effective for some strains not all, and there is no guarantee that the vaccination will stop one from getting the flu anyway.

The vaccine mut be given every year, not a one or to timer like in vaccines for more serious diseases.

I myself never get vaccinated and will not subject my child to a shot every year that may do nothing. If they were to create a vacine that was guaranteed to work on all strains and keep him from getting the flu then it would be my parental duty to see he got it. Since they cannot, then I look at it as an unecceary risk of possibly making my son sick by getting the shot and I will not do that.

No government agency has the right to tell me to put my child at risk without subjecting said agency to a lawsuit if the vaccine does more harm than good.

I believe that by not vaccinating your son, you are exposing him to unnecessary risks. Children do not yet have fully developed immune systems, so the flu is a much more serious disease. Roughly 20,000 people die each year due to the flu or complications from the flu. Almost all people who get the flu vaccine have no serious problems from it. Everyone in high risk group, including children, the elderly, and those who live with children and the elderly should get an annual flu shot because the benefits of avoiding the flu far outweigh the miniscule risks of the flu shot.

The flu vaccine uses killed viruses, so it can not cause the flu. It may cause some mild flu-like symptoms, but this is simply due to the immune system reacting to the killed flu viruses. There is a risk of serious allergic reaction in people with egg allergies, but even if you don't know you have an egg allergy, an acute allergy reaction can be easily treated. There is about a one-in-million change of getting Gullain-Barre Syndrome from a flu shot, but most people fully recover from GBS.

 

[tickledorange]

A lot of people have bad reactions to the flu shot. It's one of the reasons I don't get it: they give me a bad headache. Why should this shot be mandatory if it makes a lot of the people who get it sick/sicker?

 

[venray]

I believe that by not vaccinating your son, you are exposing him to unnecessary risks. Children do not yet have fully developed immune systems, so the flu is a much more serious disease. Roughly 20,000 people die each year due to the flu or complications from the flu. Almost all people who get the flu vaccine have no serious problems from it. Everyone in high risk group, including children, the elderly, and those who live with children and the elderly should get an annual flu shot because the benefits of avoiding the flu far outweigh the miniscule risks of the flu shot.

The flu vaccine uses killed viruses, so it can not cause the flu. It may cause some mild flu-like symptoms, but this is simply due to the immune system reacting to the killed flu viruses. There is a risk of serious allergic reaction in people with egg allergies, but even if you don't know you have an egg allergy, an acute allergy reaction can be easily treated. There is about a one-in-million change of getting Gullain-Barre Syndrome from a flu shot, but most people fully recover from GBS.

The flu vaccine used can cause one to become sick. it is there to stimulate your immune systenm into fighting the strains it is designed for. If as you say a childs immune system is not fully developed, then we would be exposing the child to a greater risk by giving him said vaccine. i work in a pharmacy with a medical clinic in house. No child has been vaccinated in this clinic.

My son is 9 and would not fall under any mandate anyway not that it makes a difference as I would not conform. By age 7-8 the system is fully developed. As Kis and I have both stated, the flu is a sickness not a disease and the vaccines do not always work as the ones for childhood diseases do. Unecessary risk outweighs minimal benefit. The risk being the vaccine itself and not the chance that he will conract the flu which he never has in his 8 years so far. Even a cold only lasts a day or two with him, so I think his immune system works prety well. Our schools in CT ask that any time a child has a fever of any type that they be kept out of school and most parents are conscientious enough to conform which also minimizes risk.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6332053/

 

[SpiffyTickler]

The flu vaccine used can cause one to become sick. it is there to stimulate your immune systenm into fighting the strains it is designed for. If as you say a childs immune system is not fully developed, then we would be exposing the child to a greater risk by giving him said vaccine.

"Studies support the safety of annual TIV in children and adolescents. The largest published postlicensure population-based study assessed TIV safety in 215,600 children aged <18 years and 8,476 children aged 6--23 months enrolled in one of five health maintenance organizations (HMOs) during 1993--1999. This study indicated no increase in biologically plausible, medically attended events during the 2 weeks after inactivated influenza vaccination, compared with control periods 3--4 weeks before and after vaccination (198). A retrospective study using medical records data from approximately 45,000 children aged 6--23 months provided additional evidence supporting overall safety of TIV in this age group. Vaccination was not associated with statistically significant increases in any medically attended outcome, and 13 diagnoses, including acute upper respiratory illness, otitis media and asthma, were significantly less common (199)."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr57e717a1.htm

My son is 9 and would not fall under any mandate anyway not that it makes a difference as I would not conform. By age 7-8 the system is fully developed. As Kis and I have both stated, the flu is a sickness not a disease and the vaccines do not always work as the ones for childhood diseases do. Unecessary risk outweighs minimal benefit. The risk being the vaccine itself and not the chance that he will conract the flu which he never has in his 8 years so far. Even a cold only lasts a day or two with him, so I think his immune system works prety well. Our schools in CT ask that any time a child has a fever of any type that they be kept out of school and most parents are conscientious enough to conform which also minimizes risk.

Minimal benefit?

"Certain studies have demonstrated vaccine efficacy or effectiveness among children aged >6 months, although estimates have varied. In a randomized trial conducted during five influenza seasons (1985--1990) in the United States among children aged 1--15 years, annual vaccination reduced laboratory-confirmed influenza A substantially (77%--91%) (106). A limited 1-year placebo-controlled study reported vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed influenza illness of 56% among healthy children aged 3--9 years and 100% among healthy children and adolescents aged 10--18 years (127). A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted during two influenza seasons among children aged 6--24 months indicated that efficacy was 66% against culture-confirmed influenza illness during 1999--2000, but did not significantly reduce culture-confirmed influenza illness during 2000--2001 (128). In a nonrandomized controlled trial among children aged 2--6 years and 7--14 years who had asthma, vaccine efficacy was 54% and 78% against laboratory-confirmed influenza type A infection and 22% and 60% against laboratory-confirmed influenza type B infection, respectively. Vaccinated children aged 2--6 years with asthma did not have substantially fewer type B influenza virus infections compared with the control group in this study (129). Vaccination also might provide protection against asthma exacerbations (130); however, other studies of children with asthma have not demonstrated decreased exacerbations (131). Because of the recognized influenza-related disease burden among children with other chronic diseases or immunosuppression and the long-standing recommendation for vaccination of these children, randomized placebo-controlled studies to study efficacy in these children have not been conducted because of ethical considerations.

A retrospective study conducted among approximately 30,000 children aged 6 months--8 years during an influenza season (2003--04) with a suboptimal vaccine match indicated vaccine effectiveness of 51% against medically attended, clinically diagnosed pneumonia or influenza (i.e., no laboratory confirmation of influenza) among fully vaccinated children, and 49% among approximately 5,000 children aged 6--23 months (125). Another retrospective study of similar size conducted during the same influenza season in Denver but limited to healthy children aged 6--21 months estimated clinical effectiveness of 2 TIV doses to be 87% against pneumonia or influenza-related office visits (121)."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr57e717a1.htm

 

[alchemy]

Although I don't yet have any children, I believe that having children isn't necessarily a prerequisite to expressing an opinion on matters related to parenting. I am also confident that my opinion on mandatory vaccinations will not change once I do have children.

I believe that parents do not and should not have absolute rights over their children. I believe that the state can and does legitimately impose certain restrictions on parents, such as requiring that children be educated, and requiring that children receive certain vaccinations. In the case of vaccinations, I believe public health trumps parental rights.

That's right Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". It's not the individual that's important, it's the group; however, in America it's supposed to work the opposite way. Anyhoo...

Kis is absolutely right. The government has no business telling people how to parent. If a parent does not want their child to have a flu shot, then it should end there. Only in countries that DON'T have things like the bill of rights does such a thing...or rather DID such a thing take place. I mean, by your design, some of the crap that happens and continues to happen in China is just fine. You know, the government telling you what sex of kid you should have...how many you should have...to go and drown your female children if you have any. And why not...isn't it all in the name of the public good?

 

[SpiffyTickler]

That's right Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". It's not the individual that's important, it's the group; however, in America it's supposed to work the opposite way. Anyhoo...

Kis is absolutely right. The government has no business telling people how to parent. If a parent does not want their child to have a flu shot, then it should end there. Only in countries that DON'T have things like the bill of rights does such a thing...or rather DID such a thing take place. I mean, by your design, some of the crap that happens and continues to happen in China is just fine. You know, the government telling you what sex of kid you should have...how many you should have...to go and drown your female children if you have any. And why not...isn't it all in the name of the public good?

This isn't about individual rights, it's about public health risks. The effects of choosing to not have your children immunized are not individually localized, they affect the health of those around them. Not getting your kids immunized poses a risk to my health and the health of others through higher rates of flu contraction and exposure. It also results in an increased consumption of medical resources, resulting in higher medical rates for the rest of us.

 

[venray]

This isn't about individual rights, it's about public health risks. The effects of choosing to not have your children immunized are not individually localized, they affect the health of those around them. Not getting your kids immunized poses a risk to my health and the health of others through higher rates of flu contraction and exposure. It also results in an increased consumption of medical resources, resulting in higher medical rates for the rest of us.

The flu vaccinne does not "immunize"...it is only good for the season you get it done and even then is many times not effective. We are not talking about immunizing against childhood disease. We are talking about a flu shot that is inneffective at best, and can cause sickness in the worst case scenario. i will not take that chance with my son and thank goodness my state is not fooloish enough to require it....

and this that you posted illustrates my point perfectly....


A retrospective study conducted among approximately 30,000 children aged 6 months--8 years during an influenza season (2003--04) with a suboptimal vaccine match indicated vaccine effectiveness of 51% against medically attended, clinically diagnosed pneumonia or influenza (i.e., no laboratory confirmation of influenza) among fully vaccinated children, and 49% among approximately 5,000 children aged 6--23 months (125).

Sorry...not good enough...give me a 90% effectiveness against ALL types of influenza and we'll talk.....won't need a mandate to get it done at that point...

49-50% effectiveness does not prevent any kind of hazaard to others health...this is NOT a public health issue and most Americans do NOT get flu shots....

If this were a big health issue then all people with jobs, that go to college, or that frequent public places such as airports, retaurants, and large events, shoul also be required to get these shots for public safety....not just the kids

 

[venray]

This isn't about individual rights, it's about public health risks. The effects of choosing to not have your children immunized are not individually localized, they affect the health of those around them. Not getting your kids immunized poses a risk to my health and the health of others through higher rates of flu contraction and exposure. It also results in an increased consumption of medical resources, resulting in higher medical rates for the rest of us.

If you are worried about YOUR health risk...get the shot, but you have no right to make that decision for anyone else....nor the the state of Jersey or any other...

 

[SpiffyTickler]

The flu vaccinne does not "immunize"...it is only good for the season you get it done and even then is many times not effective. We are not talking about immunizing against childhood disease.

The flu shot does indeed "immunize" you, though from the strains present within the shot. I also understand how a flu shot works and that it is seasonal since the influenza virus is constantly mutating into new strains, but thank you for explaining anyway.

We are talking about a flu shot that is inneffective at best, and can cause sickness in the worst case scenario. i will not take that chance with my son and thank goodness my state is not fooloish enough to require it....

On the previous page I posted quotations from a report by the CDC detailing the effectiveness of flu shots, along with the low risks involved. Their data goes against what your claiming.

and this that you posted illustrates my point perfectly....


A retrospective study conducted among approximately 30,000 children aged 6 months--8 years during an influenza season (2003--04) with a suboptimal vaccine match indicated vaccine effectiveness of 51% against medically attended, clinically diagnosed pneumonia or influenza (i.e., no laboratory confirmation of influenza) among fully vaccinated children, and 49% among approximately 5,000 children aged 6--23 months (125).

Sorry...not good enough...give me a 90% effectiveness against ALL types of influenza and we'll talk.....won't need a mandate to get it done at that point...

What makes 90% effectiveness the threshold for you to consider a flu shot worthwhile? A shot with 50% effectiveness is still 50% more effective than no shot at all.

49-50% effectiveness does not prevent any kind of hazaard to others health...this is NOT a public health issue and most Americans do NOT get flu shots....

I'm not sure how or why you'd feel that cutting the chances of someone catching and further spreading the flu by 50% would somehow not be significant in containing the spread of the flu.

If this were a big health issue then all people with jobs, that go to college, or that frequent public places such as airports, retaurants, and large events, shoul also be required to get these shots for public safety....not just the kids

Asides from kids being one of the groups most at-risk for catching the flu, they're also the easiest to deal with, since you're just adding flu shots to their other mandatory school vaccinations. Very simple and easy solution.

It's also more than just a public health issue.

"Economic studies of influenza vaccination are difficult to compare because they have used different measures of both costs and benefits (e.g., cost-only, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, or cost-utility). However, most studies find that vaccination reduces or minimizes health care, societal, and individual costs, or the productivity losses and absenteeism associated with influenza illness. One national study estimated the annual economic burden of seasonal influenza in the United States (using 2003 population and dollars) to be $87.1 billion, including $10.4 billion in direct medical costs (303)."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr57e717a1.htm

 

[Mephistopheles]

Christian Scientist's and Seventh Day Adventists.I'm pretty sure i'm right about both of these.

Yep, and those are the only groups of people here whose children get polio. I think that is a very severe form of child abuse.

 

[kis123]

Okay....here come the scientific study crew. All right, you've done your research and posted your science.....thanks for the info. But with a below 50% success rate with only limited strains of flu covered, let's play devil's advocate again.

You still have 50% of the child population that the shot is unsuccessful and you have 100% of the same population that the shot is absolutely useless if a strain of flu that's uncovered gets out. That's not nearly good enough to mandate this shot. Go back to the drawing board, improve the quality of the shot and the percentages, then talk to me.

Secondly, I go back to my post about the immunizations that do work such as MMR (measles, mumps, rubella). The child gets two rounds of the immunization (not sure on the ages), but and they do work. The child doesn't have to take it every year and hope it covers the particular strain that year.

For the state to mandate a shot annually that has less than a 50% success rate and doesn't even cover all (or most) of the strains out that year is no more to me than using these kids as guinea pigs to further studies.

Let's just say that kis is in "B" movieland and is just imagining things. Would you really put your own child through such with these percentages? I don't think I would. I also get particularly offended when the state tells me they know what's best for my child more than I do-that's a wad of horse crap! I've been victimized by the state personally as well as working in a children's hospital for 6years; these people are overworked and overwhelmed and are looking for a way to broad brush the problems away IMO. My children are grown now, but if they were in that age group I'd be moving out of Jersey or fighting it tooth and nail!

 

[Knot Amewzed]

If you are worried about YOUR health risk...get the shot, but you have no right to make that decision for anyone else....nor the the state of Jersey or any other...

Venray, if I had room in my sig for this quote, I would steal it! Spot-on, brother!!!

 

[casper314]

There is an important difference between all of the examples you cite and vaccination. If eat unhealthy foods, bike without a helmet, or swim in a pool, the risk you are exposed to is personal. You don't really risk directly harming anyone but yourself. But if you choose to not get your child vaccinated, you increase the risk of serious disease not only for your own child, but also for everyone your child is exposed to, even people who did get vaccinated.

It's one thing to put only yourself at extra risk. It's quite another to expose everyone else to extra risk involuntarily. It is entirely appropriate for the government to act in this case to keep people from harming others by their actions.

Icycle,

I have to disagree; your choice in the the food you eat could lead you to have a stroke or a heart attack. what happens if your driving and one of these affection happen to you; would you be endangering the public?

there are hundredth of things which a single person does that effects the community as a whole. However, the government doesn't make laws to prevent it.

when your in a crowded room and breathing the same air as everyone else; are you or are you not taking in germs? when you tickle someone and they starts to laugh and cough are you or are you not taking in germs?

when you caught a cold do you
a go to work anyway
b always stay home so you don't affect others?

more than likely people will choice A.

when the government starts mandating what you can and can't do, they do it under the lies of "it good for you", " We knows what best for you".

we as a people have lost some of our independents, and freedom to choose.

Or,

we can use religion if you will (i am paraphrasing so don't have a cow"

God could have made it where everyone had no choice but to believe in him. However, in his wisdom he decided to give us FREE WILL, so we can choose on our own if we want to believe or not.

If God refuse to take away our free will and allow the right to governing our own life. Why do people feel they have the right to do what God himself refuse to do?

 

[Mephistopheles]

If you are worried about YOUR health risk...get the shot, but you have no right to make that decision for anyone else....nor the the state of Jersey or any other...

You have a point when it comes to flu shots, but for more serious diseases (polio, smallpox etcetera) it is not only a public health risk not to vaccinate your child but it is also child abuse in my opinion.

 

[casper314]

I view flu shots as I view seat belts; they both work about 50% of the time. However, people will put spin on the statistics to make it sound like it the second coming.

Most people live in fear of what might happen because of the hype or prediction of doom and gloom push at them on a daily bases.

"You are a bad parent if you don’t allow us to use your child as a ginny pig"; "we need this data so we can make a better product."

If they want human ginny pigs let them pay people to be one; not use a parents child as a weapon against them.

If you don’t have your children vaccinated, they can’t go to school, and if they don’t school, you neglecting their rights to a educations. Which mean you are committing child abuse against your children; which mean you will lose your children, or your freedom, or both. Just because you don’t abide by our one sided ruiles of using your children as living lab rats.

In Illinois, it’s mandatory for people to wear seatbelt will driving a car. The police can pull you over just for that and give you an $100.00 ticket per person for not wearing a seatbelt. The governor said "it would protect people from getting hurt while in a car accident. according to doctors." (my ass)

However, in the same state you can ride a motorcycle without an helmet; the reason giving for not changing the law is “they didn’t’ want to interfere in people rights.” the motorcycle law is older than the seatbelt law.

If this is not a cluster f__k of an abuse of government powers; I don’t know what is.

 

[venray]

You have a point when it comes to flu shots, but for more serious diseases (polio, smallpox etcetera) it is not only a public health risk not to vaccinate your child but it is also child abuse in my opinion.

And mandatory flu shots is exactly what we are discussing here. My son is fully vaccinated and up to date for all the imunization vaccines that he has needed in his life.....I have no issue with those, but only because I did the research before immunization took place....

as for the flu, it is not an imunization tool as it is innefective far more than effective...

Like Kis says.." go back to the drawing board and then call me"..

vaccinating children for the flu is like vaccinating for the common cold at this point with a slighty higher chance of success... when you have kids you dont give them unneccesary meds or shots of any kind...and you dont let others tell you what you should be sticking them with without being sure that no harm will come to them...

Those without kids have a right to their opinion, but those with kids will fight to the death their right to protect them as they see fit as parents..

As I have stated, my son is 9 and has never had the flu and I am not about to take the chance of giving it to him by having him injected with a virus...

Flu vaccine does NOT work like those for mumps measles and chicken pox....so the "science" buffs here had best go back and do a little more research...

I stand by my conviction that the government has no right to mandate that which is not proven to be highly effective with minimal risk...

I use 90% as a personal comfort zone when it involves my flesh and blood...

If the government can madate this then they can next say that everyone must have this vaccination...I for one have never gotten this shot nor will I as I feel it is useless in comparison to any benefits..

As I said before...those that think it is a public health problem can elect to get the shot for themselves and leave the rest of us out of this..

 

[venray]

Addendum:

There are currently 92 different strains of influenza and mutating strains all of the time...

It is impossible to immunize against them all and vaccinations should not be mandatory...

 

[Icycle]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6332053/

Am I to assume from this link that you don't give your son flu shots because you are worried about autism? Science has looked very hard and has failed to find any connection between vaccines containing thimerosal and autism. And if you were worried anyway, you can get thimerosal-free flu shots. Meanwhile 150 children in the US die of flu or flu related illness each year. How many of those tragic deaths could have been prevented if the children, their caretakers, and their playmates had been vaccinated?

That's right Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". It's not the individual that's important, it's the group; however, in America it's supposed to work the opposite way. Anyhoo...

Even leaving aside any herd immunity effects, the personal benefits of getting the flu shot greatly outweigh the miniscule risks. It's not about the needs of the many. People should just get the flu shot because they are greedy bastards.

I mean, by your design, some of the crap that happens and continues to happen in China is just fine. You know, the government telling you what sex of kid you should have...how many you should have...to go and drown your female children if you have any. And why not...isn't it all in the name of the public good?

For the record, while China does have a one child policy, they have no policy about the sex of children. The disproportionate abortion and infanticide of female children is because many Chinese parents simply value boys more, and if they can only have one, they want it to be a boy. The government explicitly prohibits such acts, and such acts are by no means for the public good. Ending up with a society with far more men than women is a very bad thing.

If this were a big health issue then all people with jobs, that go to college, or that frequent public places such as airports, retaurants, and large events, shoul also be required to get these shots for public safety....not just the kids

For most people, most of the time, the flu is a serious nuisance and nothing more. It is life threatening only for young children, the elderly, and the immune compromised. I would support mandatory flu shots for health care workers, day care and preschool workers, and those who work for the elderly.

You are a bad parent if you don’t allow us to use your child as a ginny pig"; "we need this data so we can make a better product."

If they want human ginny pigs let them pay people to be one; not use a parents child as a weapon against them.

We aren't talking about clinical trials here. There have been numerous studies that prove both the safety and efficacy of the flu shot. We are talking about giving your child a safe, tested shot that dramatically improves his chances of avoiding the flu. There are no men in white lab coats with clipboards collecting data; the children are not guinea pigs.

vaccinating children for the flu is like vaccinating for the common cold at this point with a slighty higher chance of success...

One important difference is that the flu is a much more serious illness than the common cold, especially in children under 5. Although I have to admit, if there was a "cold shot" available that was as safe as the flu shot that could give me even a 50% chance of avoiding a cold, I would get that one too.

As I have stated, my son is 9 and has never had the flu and I am not about to take the chance of giving it to him by having him injected with a virus...

It is a killed virus. You can not get the flu from a flu shot.

Flu vaccine does NOT work like those for mumps measles and chicken pox....so the "science" buffs here had best go back and do a little more research...

The flu vaccine works exactly like vaccines for all those other diseases. The difference is that the flu virus mutates much more rapidly than these other pathogens, and the part that mutates most rapidly is the part that codes for the protein coat that allows the human immune system to recognize the virus. The flu vaccine isn't "permanent" because the flu that becomes widespread next year is likely to be very different than the one that spreads this year.

I stand by my conviction that the government has no right to mandate that which is not proven to be highly effective with minimal risk...

But it has been proved to be highly effective with minimal risk. That 50% effectiveness number that you took out of context was the worst case scenario, when we guess wrong as to which strains of flu virus will be most widespread. Current technology requires a six month lead time to produce winter flu vaccines. There is new vaccine production technology currently under development that will dramatically reduce the required lead time, and as a result, we will guess wrong a lot less often, and flu vaccines will be even more effective and no less safe.

If the government can madate this then they can next say that everyone must have this vaccination...I for one have never gotten this shot nor will I as I feel it is useless in comparison to any benefits..

I'm not sure why you feel it is useless. Having suffered through a bout of influenza in the relatively recent past, I can assure you that it is a thoroughly miserable experience, far worse than any cold I've ever had. Since then, I try to get a flu shot every year, to reduce the chance I ever have to go through that again. Isn't that benefit enough?

 

[casper314]

We aren't talking about clinical trials here. There have been numerous studies that prove both the safety and efficacy of the flu shot. We are talking about giving your child a safe, tested shot that dramatically improves his chances of avoiding the flu. There are no men in white lab coats with clipboards collecting data; the children are not guinea pigs.

No vaccine is completely safe for everyone; people are known to have bad reaction to taking it. True, the percentage of people is small; however, since we don't have anyway of knowing who will have this reaction, or if the reaction will become deadly. It stands to reason that it should not be a forced or mandatory injection. Unless they are still collecting data; which is what they do.

There has been cases of people becoming sick after taking these shots; my wife for one.

 

[LD_Tickler]

No vaccine is completely safe for everyone; people are known to have bad reaction to taking it. True, the percentage of people is small; however, since we don't have anyway of knowing who will have this reaction, or if the reaction will become deadly. It stands to reason that it should not be a forced or mandatory injection. Unless they are still collecting data; which is what they do.

There has been cases of people becoming sick after taking these shots; my wife for one.

I tend to get sick after getting my shot, too. For about a day.

It's nothing compared to how sick you get when you actually catch the flu, and are suffering for about a week if not longer.

Well worth it.

 

[Icycle]

No vaccine is completely safe for everyone; people are known to have bad reaction to taking it. True, the percentage of people is small; however, since we don't have anyway of knowing who will have this reaction, or if the reaction will become deadly. It stands to reason that it should not be a forced or mandatory injection. Unless they are still collecting data; which is what they do.

A small number of people with egg allergies can have a serious allergic reaction to the flu shot. People with known egg allergies should not get the flu shot. For people who don't yet know if they have an egg allergy, any such reaction will happen within about 15 minutes of getting the shot and probably almost immediately, while you are still close to professional medical care.

There has been cases of people becoming sick after taking these shots; my wife for one.

People get sick all the time, whether they get a flu shot or not. If your wife suffered cold or flu-like symptoms for more than a day, this was almost certainly a coincidence and had nothing to do with getting the flu shot.

 

[venray]

Am I to assume from this link that you don't give your son flu shots because you are worried about autism?

No. Science shows no link. though some folks dont believe that and have the right not to...


Even leaving aside any herd immunity effects, the personal benefits of getting the flu shot greatly outweigh the miniscule risks. It's not about the needs of the many. People should just get the flu shot because they are greedy bastards.

and NOT because they are told they have to..



For the record, while China does have a one child policy, they have no policy about the sex of children. The disproportionate abortion and infanticide of female children is because many Chinese parents simply value boys more, and if they can only have one, they want it to be a boy. The government explicitly prohibits such acts, and such acts are by no means for the public good. Ending up with a society with far more men than women is a very bad thing.

One thing directly causes the other....but isnt really the topic of this thread

For most people, most of the time, the flu is a serious nuisance and nothing more. It is life threatening only for young children, the elderly, and the immune compromised. I would support mandatory flu shots for health care workers, day care and preschool workers, and those who work for the elderly.

You have the right to support this as i have the right not to.



We aren't talking about clinical trials here. There have been numerous studies that prove both the safety and efficacy of the flu shot. We are talking about giving your child a safe, tested shot that dramatically improves his chances of avoiding the flu. There are no men in white lab coats with clipboards collecting data; the children are not guinea pigs.

Ah, but your opinion is it will dramatically improve his chances of getting something he has never gotten comes from where?



One important difference is that the flu is a much more serious illness than the common cold, especially in children under 5. Although I have to admit, if there was a "cold shot" available that was as safe as the flu shot that could give me even a 50% chance of avoiding a cold, I would get that one too.

And it is nice that you can make that CHOICE and not be told you have no choice..



It is a killed virus. You can not get the flu from a flu shot.

There are also live vivus sprays that are administered with some lovely side effects possible...



The flu vaccine works exactly like vaccines for all those other diseases. The difference is that the flu virus mutates much more rapidly than these other pathogens, and the part that mutates most rapidly is the part that codes for the protein coat that allows the human immune system to recognize the virus. The flu vaccine isn't "permanent" because the flu that becomes widespread next year is likely to be very different than the one that spreads this year.

Which makes it a yearly treatment and not an "Immunization" ,,,,,and less effective than I want before I stick it into my son's body...



But it has been proved to be highly effective with minimal risk. That 50% effectiveness number that you took out of context was the worst case scenario, when we guess wrong as to which strains of flu virus will be most widespread. Current technology requires a six month lead time to produce winter flu vaccines. There is new vaccine production technology currently under development that will dramatically reduce the required lead time, and as a result, we will guess wrong a lot less often, and flu vaccines will be even more effective and no less safe.

I GO with the worse case scenario when making decisions on my son's health..perhaps you will some day as well...no one can tell me what a minimal risk is concerning my child



I'm not sure why you feel it is useless. Having suffered through a bout of influenza in the relatively recent past, I can assure you that it is a thoroughly miserable experience, far worse than any cold I've ever had. Since then, I try to get a flu shot every year, to reduce the chance I ever have to go through that again. Isn't that benefit enough?

Not where I am concerned it isnt and the government has no right to tell me what is and isnt an acceptable risk...

 

[venray]

this was almost certainly a coincidence and had nothing to do with getting the flu shot.

Prove that medically please....Dr....

 

[Icycle]

Prove that medically please....Dr....

Obviously, I can not prove anything about that specific case, even if I were a medical doctor because it is long after the fact. All I can do is point to the nnumerous studies about the safety and efficacy of the flu shot. Casper314 didn't give any specifics about the nature of the illness his wife suffered, but all the medical studies I have read or heard about have found no difference in the rate of cold and flu-like illness immediately after injection between those who received an actual flu shot and those who receieved a placebo. That's as close to medical or scientific proof you are going to be able to get from me or anyone else.

 

[Icycle]

Ah, but your opinion is it will dramatically improve his chances of getting something he has never gotten comes from where?

From scientific studies. You are reasoning from anecodotal evidence, not from statistical evidence. Your son has managed to beat the odds so far by never having gotten the flu. Most likely, he is simply lucky, rather than someone who possess some novel natural immunity to all flu viruses. Every year he faces the same chance as any other non-immunized individual of contracting the flu. If he gets the flu shot, his chance of contracting the flu is even lower.

There are also live vivus sprays that are administered with some lovely side effects possible...

I thought we were talking about the flu shot, not the flu spray. I understand that using a live attenuated virus vaccine poses significantly higher risks than using a killed virus vaccine. I would not support mandatory immunization with a live virus vaccine unless the public health benefits far outweighed the health risks. That is probably not the case for the flu spray, especially considering that the flu shot has similar effectiveness with fewer side effects.

Which makes it a yearly treatment and not an "Immunization" ,,,,,and less effective than I want before I stick it into my son's body...

It is still an immunization, just one that is effective against a limited set of viral strains. Just because you need an annual flu shot does not make it any less of an immunization.

I GO with the worse case scenario when making decisions on my son's health..perhaps you will some day as well...no one can tell me what a minimal risk is concerning my child

But why do you only consider the worst case scenario of the flu shot, without considering the worst case scenario of not getting the flu shot? The flu can have serious complications, including pneumonia which can cause permanent lung damage or death, and ear infections which can cause temporary or even permanent hearing loss.

It is also important to consider the probabilities. For individuals without a known egg allergy or a history of Guillain-Barre Syndrome, the chance of a serious complication from a flu shot are astronomically small. But the chance of a serious complication from the flu itself are much, much higher.

I sincerely hope that when I have children, I will be able to maintain my objective, scientific attitude towards risk assessment.