Flu ***

[RogerS]

Tosh

What a helpful and erudite comment.

 

[Blister]

The only symptoms I have is a slightly runny nose and a slight pain in the arm after the injection , only last a couple of day , I can cope with that as I am a big boy and I don't even cry when I have the injection

 

[Jake]

... Just to clarify...what is "msm"?.
Sam.

A reliable indicator of someone with poor information hygiene, usually reliant primarily on Youtube/RT/worse for garbage takes.

 

[Garno]

I rather like the "Another Joke" thread

 

[John Brown]

I am hoping for a vaccine against social media influenzas.

 

[MikeJhn]

I’m late to the party, have the Nazis been mentioned yet?

"I mentioned them once, but think I got away with it"

 

[okeydokey]

A serious note
I have heard that the shingles vaccination, available for anyone over 70 is meant to be very good in preventing or reducing the impact of shingles, so if you are in that age group it might be worth checking with your GP.

 

[Droogs]

That is one to get if you can. My mother had Shingles when I was 12 and I will never forget what she went through. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. she was on heroin for 2 weeks and it still was not enough to stop her crying and screaming in pain. My father had to learn how to inject her to put her under to get some rest. truly awful

 

[sploo]

My fishing buddy has the flu *** every year and gets flu every year, I don't have the *** and stay healthy, he is over 80 I am in my mid 70's make of that what you will.

This is entirely possible, but it's also the wrong way of looking at viruses and vaccines (the problem with a "sample of one" - or in this case "two").

You may, or may not, contract a particular virus in any given year. If you do contract that virus you may have no symptoms and not be contagious. You may have no symptoms and be contagious. You may have mild symptoms. Or severe symptoms. It may even be fatal.

The important thing is to look at larger samples. If you compare 1000 people who haven't been given a vaccine for a particular virus, vs a similar set of 1000 that have been given the vaccine, what are the results overall.

The likelihood is that fewer of the vaccinated group will suffer serious symptoms or die - but it's entirely probable that some individuals from both groups will experience any one of the many possible outcomes listed above.

The problem is that this isn't obvious to the layman; you see yourself (or a few close acquaintances) get, or not get, symptoms, and extrapolate the effectiveness of a vaccine (or the risks of a virus) from that small - and statistically insignificant - sample size. Case in point; I know several long term smokers. Not one of them has died from lung disease; hence smoking must be safe, yes?

 

[John Brown]

A serious note
I have heard that the shingles vaccination, available for anyone over 70 is meant to be very good in preventing or reducing the impact of shingles, so if you are in that age group it might be worth checking with your GP.

Hmmm. I finished fixing my felt shingles last week, but I'm only 67, so wouldn't have been any help.

 

[artie]

This is entirely possible, but it's also the wrong way of looking at viruses and vaccines (the problem with a "sample of one" - or in this case "two").

You may, or may not, contract a particular virus in any given year. If you do contract that virus you may have no symptoms and not be contagious. You may have no symptoms and be contagious. You may have mild symptoms. Or severe symptoms. It may even be fatal.

The important thing is to look at larger samples. If you compare 1000 people who haven't been given a vaccine for a particular virus, vs a similar set of 1000 that have been given the vaccine, what are the results overall.

The likelihood is that fewer of the vaccinated group will suffer serious symptoms or die - but it's entirely probable that some individuals from both groups will experience any one of the many possible outcomes listed above.

The problem is that this isn't obvious to the layman; you see yourself (or a few close acquaintances) get, or not get, symptoms, and extrapolate the effectiveness of a vaccine (or the risks of a virus) from that small - and statistically insignificant - sample size. Case in point; I know several long term smokers. Not one of them has died from lung disease; hence smoking must be safe, yes?

I am going to comment again on this thread now that maybe the dust has settled.
To make a very valid point and use words, like likelihood and entirely probable.

But on the other hand, if you take 1000 people and vaccinate them, take another 1000 and don't vaccinate them.
What is the probability that the unvaccinated 1000 will be damaged by a vaccine?

 

[RobinBHM]

I know that those with underlying health issues should at least consider a flue *** this year and every year. However, for the rest of us, am I not correct in thinking that flue is caused by a virus?

In which case, the precautions we are taking to reduce the spread of COV 19 virus will also reduce significantly the spread of the Flue virus.

Am I missing something?

Phil

that is correct and its borne out by the extremely low influenza cases this year (the ONS show cases for Jan, but all those from Mar onwards are lower than typical, but bear in mind the period is not in the main flu season).

I think the govt are keen for the public to have the flu *** as they are concerned about hospitals being overwhelmed by flu and covid.

colds and flu are often spread by children.....

 

[SammyQ]

What is the probability that the unvaccinated 1000 will be damaged by a vaccine?

Artie, this does not scan for me. How can something that you don't encounter or have not had injected into you, harm you? Can you please enlarge on where and how you see the damage occuring?

Sam

 

[RobinBHM]

I often hear people talking about getting less colds since having the flu vaccine.....but it doesnt protect against colds AFAIK.

 

[artie]

Artie, this does not scan for me. How can something that you don't encounter or have not had injected into you, harm you? Can you please enlarge on where and how you see the damage occuring?

Sam

You got it in one, if you don't have it , it can't harm you.
If you have it, it may or may not help you.

 

[RobinBHM]

But on the other hand, if you take 1000 people and vaccinate them, take another 1000 and don't vaccinate them.
What is the probability that the unvaccinated 1000 will be damaged by a vaccine?

false dilemma fallacy

heres the real question:

if you take 1000 people and vaccinate them what is the probability of being damaged by a vaccine
if you take 1000 people and dont vaccinate them what is the probability of being damaged by influenza

 

[RobinBHM]

Artie, this does not scan for me. How can something that you don't encounter or have not had injected into you, harm you? Can you please enlarge on where and how you see the damage occuring?

Sam

Artie is playing with logical fallacies.

 

[artie]

false dilemma fallacy

heres the real question:

No, that's your question?

 

[SammyQ]

No Artie, Robin is correct. There can be no question of "damage" as you put it, if a damaging agent, the vaccine you stated in this case, is not administered.
Robin's re-phrasing is a good succinct description of how medical - and indeed all scientific - testing is carried out. You have to compare like with like, not like with unlike.
Sam

 

[artie]

You misunderstand.
Ok am not talking about scientific or medical testing. The op said he got his *** and assumed us other wrinkles had done the same.
I for one did not. There are many more who don't.
And please don't misunderstand me, I don't care in the slightest if you or anyone else get it four times a year if that is your desire.
I do object to the fear selling that is going on. Because face it or not there are vast sums of money being made.