CDC is recommending that all Americans get a flu shot...

[sunngodd]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44612543...r#.TnohYOx16OQ

I've never gotten one before, not really sure why. I had every intention of getting one last year, but never got around to it.

[otterakl]

Hmmm. Have never gotten one as an adult. Don't get sick too often save for a sinus infection once a year or so (which the shot would obviously not help).

[SoulZeppelin]

I got one for the first time last year and didn't get the bad flu that went around at work (yes, I know, correlation vs causation). I will be getting one this year.

Inb4governmenttrackingnanoinjection

[Dujin77]

My fiance is a nurse and has to get them for work. I really don't see the point, I never get one, and I never get the flu yet she won't stop bugging me to get one...

[snorkelman]

2 weeks late, bro

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...&highlight=flu

[spicyprice]

Nurse in NICU


getting it because just because I dont get sick and have never had the flu, I can still be a carrier and spread it to those who are immuno-compromised.



If you havent gotten the vaccine because you "never get the flu," get one for all of those around you (like small children and the elderly.)

[Ryan314]

Nope. No flu shots for me. 100% faith in my own immune system.

[deadpool9]

Never had an issue with not getting one. My kid's don't get them either. I really don't like being injected with God knows what.

[FourToEight]

Meh no point, will just need a new one once the virus mutates again.

Don't need no flu shot, I evolve with the virus.

[sunngodd]

If you havent gotten the vaccine because you "never get the flu," get one for all of those around you (like small children and the elderly.)

Yeah, I'll make sure my kids get one. I probably get one this year too (even though I said that last year and didn't)

[phozosado]

The flu gets Phozo shots.

[Andrew_S]

[spicyprice]

I think MANY people dont realize that you can still carry and transfer the flu virus and not have symptoms of the flu (or even a cold.)

Would you go visit your newborn niece or nephew during flu season knowing you could be carrying the virus and not be aware of it? Or how about grandma in the hursing home? OR, how about just being in public close to others, touching the handle on a cart at the grocery store that a 10 month old will be sitting in next and touching and putting his hands in his mouth? Or how about the fact that you are contagious 1 day before symptoms appear


Its not about you, its about those who dont have a choice. YOUR immune system does nothing to keep them from catching what you are spreading.

[deadpool9]

So how does a flu shot keep me from carrying it, since it only affects/supports my immune system?

When my kids were small we kept clorox wipes in the diaper bag and wiped down anything the kids would be touching while in the cart. Then had a cart cover for them to sit in that covered the majority of thier portion of the cart. And most importantly, we washed our hands with soap often and used hand sanitizer.

[spicyprice]

Im trying to find the email pamphlet they send us at work (hospital) regarding it and it looks like I deleted it along with the other 5 billion emails they send daily. Will look for it tonight at work in my deleted folder.

[deadpool9]

From what I have read, getting vaccinated for the purpose of not spreading the flu to others that are susceptable is known as herd immunity. Herd immunity is a theory, but has no scientific backing. A flaw in this is that the flu can still be spread by those that are immune, due the virus being able to survive in saliva and nasal passages and then coughed or sneezed out and spread.
I agree in the fact that if you do catch the flu yourself, you can spread it to others unknowingly. But I think it is best that everyone make their own decision about protecting themselves from it.

[joelash302]

I think MANY people dont realize that you can still carry and transfer the flu virus and not have symptoms of the flu (or even a cold.)

Would you go visit your newborn niece or nephew during flu season knowing you could be carrying the virus and not be aware of it? Or how about grandma in the hursing home? OR, how about just being in public close to others, touching the handle on a cart at the grocery store that a 10 month old will be sitting in next and touching and putting his hands in his mouth? Or how about the fact that you are contagious 1 day before symptoms appear


Its not about you, its about those who dont have a choice. YOUR immune system does nothing to keep them from catching what you are spreading.

Fine, I'll quit putting my balls on shopping cart handles. I swear it's always a nurse that kills the fun.

[spicyprice]

I am pretty sure that herd immunity is not lacking scientific backing.
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/page...yimmunity.aspx
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...herd-immunity/

My personal issue is that an individuals choice not to vaccinate doesnt just affect the individual, it affects those who are unable to make the choice, such as the immunocompromised population.

If I am mistaken that one who does not actually fall symptomatic of the flu can still spread it, then I apologize. But that doesnt change the implications of not vaccinating.

Interesting read:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...-consequences/

[spicyprice]

Fine, I'll quit putting my balls on shopping cart handles. I swear it's always a nurse that kills the fun.

Fortunately, your ball sack will likely not spread the flu, so you can continue to do all of your shopping while rockin with your cawk out and have no worry about harming innocent children and the elderly.




Cant call thread kill on thread that had no potential for fun!

Edit:
Please make sure your balls are well groomed. We must protect the eyesight of others.

[BunkMoreland]

and subject myself to governmental control/surveillance through nanobot injection? no thank you.

[BobbyLite]

Nope. No flu shots for me. 100% faith in my own immune system.

this

[deadpool9]

After doing some further reading, it looks like there are 2 views/findings on the whole herd immunity thing.
I see a lot of statistics about how if more people were immunized, there would be fewer infections and less people spreading the virus. This does make logical sense. If you do not get infected, you cannot reproduce and spread the virus.

However, I do see where the virus could still be spread even if not infected or immune to it.
Look at pink eye. It is easily spread rapidly, and can even be spread by people that do not contract it at all. I believe this could also be the case with the flu.

I also see a lot of historical documents where there were massive outbreaks in communities that were 95-99% immunized against certain viruses.

I know Wikipedia is not a credible "source", but does make logical sense as well:
The standard mathematical definition of herd immunity applies only to "well-mixed populations," in which each infected individual is capable of transmitting the disease to any susceptible individual, regardless of social ties or location. More specifically, the relationship between the basic reproduction number R0 and the herd immunity threshold illustrated in the table above relies on a calculation that is valid only in well-mixed populations. Actual large populations, however, are better described as social networks, in which transmission can occur only between peers/neighbors. The shape of a social network can alter the level of vaccination required for herd immunity, as well as the likelihood that a population will achieve herd immunity.[9][10] Compared to well-mixed populations, herd immunity in social networks is particularly fragile.[11]

Herd immunity was of course originated from idea of herds of cattle, where every cow had access to every other cow. I do see this being more of an issue with areas like schools, where there are large amounts of people within an enclosed space making random and frequent contact with each other. (Like cattle in a pen).

[spicyprice]

After doing some further reading, it looks like there are 2 views/findings on the whole herd immunity thing.
I see a lot of statistics about how if more people were immunized, there would be fewer infections and less people spreading the virus. This does make logical sense. If you do not get infected, you cannot reproduce and spread the virus.

However, I do see where the virus could still be spread even if not infected or immune to it.
Look at pink eye. It is easily spread rapidly, and can even be spread by people that do not contract it at all. I believe this could also be the case with the flu.

I also see a lot of historical documents where there were massive outbreaks in communities that were 95-99% immunized against certain viruses.

I know Wikipedia is not a credible "source", but does make logical sense as well:
The standard mathematical definition of herd immunity applies only to "well-mixed populations," in which each infected individual is capable of transmitting the disease to any susceptible individual, regardless of social ties or location. More specifically, the relationship between the basic reproduction number R0 and the herd immunity threshold illustrated in the table above relies on a calculation that is valid only in well-mixed populations. Actual large populations, however, are better described as social networks, in which transmission can occur only between peers/neighbors. The shape of a social network can alter the level of vaccination required for herd immunity, as well as the likelihood that a population will achieve herd immunity.[9][10] Compared to well-mixed populations, herd immunity in social networks is particularly fragile.[11]

Herd immunity was of course originated from idea of herds of cattle, where every cow had access to every other cow. I do see this being more of an issue with areas like schools, where there are large amounts of people within an enclosed space making random and frequent contact with each other. (Like cattle in a pen).

I am really hesitant as well to trust wiki and if you could link the exact page you read this on then maybe there is some more info on the references.

I have a hard time arguing that the recent outbreaks/epidemic of whooping cough here in San Diego (which originated in a group of upper-middle income families who had chosen not to vaccinate and then spread, killing several babies--- I believe it was introduced to the group by another child who had flown out of the country and brought it back and introduced it) would not have been prevented had all of those children been immunized.... I was just glancing though trying to find the article I read on it and noticed that there are reports of 2/3 of the victims as being vaccinated and a possible waning of the efficacy. This makes me think of some of the historical data you mentioned. Is it possible that the historical data was from a time before appropriate boosters and appropriate dosing had been established? Is it possible that this case of the whooping cough epidemic may be what teaches us that a booster is needed in the early teen years? The CDC hasnt come out with an M&M review of it yet from what I can tell.

There are some interesting case write ups linked to the wiki articles I pulled up. Example.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5550a2.htm

[deadpool9]

Yeah a lot of what I am reading is saying that the vaccination is pretty much useless after about 2 years. Now this is different with the flu, as it mutates, has lots of different strains, etc. and you have to have a different vaccine each year.

That wiki page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

Here is an article where 1000 people in NY got mumps last year, 159 in NJ of which 77% were vaccinated.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-08/h...s?_s=PM:HEALTH

BTW, I am not trying to discredit you or your posts by any means. I am just posting in the interest of discussion and further learning/education.