No Vaccination = Thin The Herd?
Tweet
If some people want to refuse vaccination, maybe that’s for the best.
At the same time, however, many Americans are hesitant about being vaccinated or having their children inoculated. More than six in 10 say they will not get vaccinated, and only 52 percent of parents say they plan to have their children vaccinated, even though parents tend to be more worried about the flu.
We’ve needed some way to cut down on the stupid, it seems this may be self-selecting. Harsh, but…
24 Responses to “No Vaccination = Thin The Herd?”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Getting the flu vaccine isn’t necessarily something we should see as universal. Traditionally, only the old, infirm, and health care workers have taken it. It might be worthwhile for H1N1, since it’s a new strain, but this isn’t like parents who refuse to innoculate against rubella.
That’s why Darwin didn’t believe there should be hospitals. Can you say, “Slippery slope”? I know that you can.
You know what else about Darwin? Hitler!
Hospitals in Darwin’s time and up to the early part of the twentieth century weren’t like how we imagine hospitals today. They were mostly a place for the sick and infirm to go to die, not a place where diseases are cured. That’s why Darwin didn’t think that hospitals were good because he believed people should be surrounded by loved ones when they die, not shuttled off to facilities to be alone.
Being incredibly ignorant of something doesn’t stop Frank from commenting on it as though he’s an expert though.
Sorry, this is wrong. You need to consider the threat posed by the nonvaccinated on people who are immunosuppressed. http://www.slate.com/id/2232977/
In public health there is the concept of ‘herd immunity’ which holds it is often not necessary to vaccinate 100% of a population to prevent disease transmission. If enough people are vaccinated (the necessary proportion varies by disease and setting), then even those not vaccinated have will have a minimal chance of coming in contact with a case. But that shouldn’t be used as an excuse not to be vaccinated (though I appreciate some of the concerns expressed in other threads).
How well tested is this? Have they actually done any testing to conclude that this vaccine will cause no additional side effects as standard flu vaccines created from human-borne viruses?
Just saying “We don’t see any reason why it would.” isn’t really good enough. We test things for a reason, and we are dealing with a biological vaccine, not some sort of chemical treatment. We should be more wary and make sure we only vaccinate those people who are actually necessary to vaccinate. This aint the spanish flu, and there’s no reason to rush into this.
H1N1 is a human-borne virus.
Regarding whether it is the Spanish flu or not is that we don’t know whether it’s the Spanish flu or not until it’s too late. So the plan is to nip it in the bud.
Odds are I probably got H1N1 during the original outbreak last spring. However, I do not really know for sure.
I always assumed that the reason you should get a flu shot is because you stand a risk from dying from the flu. Otherwise, you should just stay at home when you get the flu, tough it out, and make sure not to infect everyone else around you.
Joseph Mercolaites aren’t cool
That’s why Darwin didn’t think that hospitals were good because he believed people should be surrounded by loved ones when they die, not shuttled off to facilities to be alone.
And your evidence for this is?
It might be worthwhile for H1N1, since it’s a new strain, but this isn’t like parents who refuse to innoculate against rubella.
You do realize that H1N1 has a much higher infection and mortality rate among the young than the seasonal flu, right? Almost half the hospitalizations have been of teenagers and children, and unprecedented rate.
Yeah, as mentioned the problem with the loons who don’t get their kids shots is that they put other kids at risk just as much as their own kids.
You do realize that H1N1 has a much higher infection and mortality rate among the young than the seasonal flu, right?
Yes. That’s why I said that it might be worth innoculating against H1N1 when you wouldn’t otherwise innoculate yourself against the seasonal flu. Still, though, many deaths due to H1N1 many times occur because there is some other underlying condition that makes the patient vulnerable.
Maybe part of this is that I’m simply skeptical of our ability to innoculate 300 million people and just think it would be better for everyone if we just concentrated on people who might die without it and people like health care workers who deal with patients all day, every day.
In addition, I’ve noticed a definite shift in public sentiment when it comes to flu vaccines in general– it used to be that it was something that the elderly got because the flu might kill them. Now we go in an give seasonal flu vaccines to healthy high school students. Of course, I got my seasonal shot and I may well get H1N1 when it becomes available, but this was the first time ever.
Can you say, “Slippery slope”?
Yep, and you keep sliding right down it.
That’s why Darwin didn’t think that hospitals were good because he believed people should be surrounded by loved ones when they die, not shuttled off to facilities to be alone.
And your evidence for this is?
DiSalle,
Some people read people’s work before commenting on it. You should try reading Darwin. Then you would not have to rely on more educated people for your information.
It is not difficult to read him he is quite a clear and straightforward writer. I recommend beginning with “The Voyage of the Beagle” It is available for free online, Here:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-voyage-of-the-beagle/
I believe that many people when they hear the word “flu” think that it a virus that presents like the seasonal flu. H1N1 is INFLUENZA, and it is NOTHING LIKE THE FLU as we know it. Influenza fevers last for 15 days or more of over 104 – 105 degrees. The body has difficulty remaining hydrated, and the body’s organs shut down and the body goes into a coma. My son when he was 9 yrs. old had influenza, and it was frightening. At one point, he lost movement of his legs, and fell down when trying to walk from his bed. I rushed him to the emergency room, where he was hydrated. His fever never went below 102, until exactly 15 days from outset, it broke. He’s 15, and every year since then HE asks for the flu shot. I have a holistic leaning. I believe in homeopathic treatments when possible, and I supplement with natural flu remedies elderberry syrup, and umcka herbal syrup. But, believe me when I say, I and my entire family WILL get vaccinated. It’s no joke!
I don’t want to be a jerk when I say this, but influenza and the “flu” are the same thing. Different strains of influenza can cause more or less severe effects. But flu is flu, the term comes from the word influenza. That’s why on the CDCs website seasonal flu is labeled influenza and H1N1 is also labeled influenza. They are both the flu, just different strains.
Thanks Teresa,
The answer Frank is: from Darwin’s own writings.
Michael over here, and Teresa… Since you both have read everything Darwin wrote, you should be able to tell me where he wrote that people shouldn’t go to hospitals, because hospitals were typically places where people went to die, and people should die at home, with their families.
I believe that what Darwin said was that optimally, there should be no hospitals, because it gives the unfit an undeserved advantage.
My source for that information?
http://www.somewhereontheinternet.com
Then again, this might be of interest:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8751&page=2
Of course, if you want to believe Darwin was a humanitarian, wait til you see how Margaret Sanger interprets him, or you may want to read about the case of Buck v Bell
Teresa, when Mike Over Here makes things up, you would do well to do some research before you back his play.
Uh, how is it Darwin’s fault if someone decides to misinterprethim. I don’t blame Jesus for teabaggers.
So you linked to a made up website URL to prove you were just making shit up.
The opinion piece you link to speaks of vaccinations and surgery and states that Darwin didn’t believe in them for one reason or another even though vaccinations were not even existant in Darwin’s time and surgery was recognized as tinkering.
I’m sorry I don’t have time to search for the exact quote about dying with family but it’s there in the correspondence near the end of his life.
Nevertheless none of this really matters. Darwin can stupidly hate the Irish and still be the scientist with the idea that successfully argues against creation. He recognized that chance doesn’t build complex beings but the power of natural selection does and that’s why we talk about him. We can still criticize certain ideas he had, that’s how science works. But maybe that’s confusing to people who believe in unquestioned authority.
That’s right , Michael Over Here, Darwin, like some of us , was capable of having two different ideas in his head at the same time. He was also capable of having ideas that weren’t well thought out politically, or examined for unintended consequences, but he didn’t run a country. He was not proposing that the nation’s government should take over its health care system.
Now, the prize for that insane conception goes to the Democratic Party of 2009, and if it is a bad idea, it will be a stupendously bad idea, an idea so bad people may die.
WOW FRANK! YOU WINS THE INTERNETZ! Are you actually trying to make an argument of some sort?
Seriously, you’re the one who, in the non-sequitor of the century, brought up and attacked Darwin. He has nothing to do with modern health care besides the fact that his theory is essential in understanding and curing diseases. His personal beliefs on health care have no baring whatsoever.
Social Darwinism was created well after the fact of Darwin’s (brilliant) scientific work.
Darwin himself never says that evolution leads to “better” organisms, simply ones that are better suited to an environment that could change in another direction on any given day.
Evolution is as much of a fact as gravity is.
Being a dick isn’t good for your site, either, Oliver.