I know, read the thread and you'll see my position is exactly the same as yours
Cool hostility bro.
Swine Flu Immunisation
- Thread starter k3wt
- Start date
Cool hostility bro.
So then argue on that basis rather than the herd-immunity response that you did as lets face it we are not going to get herd-immunity against swine flu are we.
And you can still get swine flu so therefore can still get it's complications and also run the risk of getting complications to the vaccine. The problem is that this is a thoroughly obfuscated issue that was clearly misjudged and blown out of proportion by the CDC and WHO when we look at how things have transpired. Now that does not mean there is not a doomsday event around the corner and for most people the risk of getting an adverse event on taking the vaccine does in no way compare to the risk of getting a bad bout of any type of flu. All I am trying to say is there is a load of **** being thrown around by both sides of the argument. When in fact it is quite simple. Take the vaccine - it should give you good protection and runs minimal risk but this is in no way guaranteed or don't take the vaccine and don't complain when you are one of the unfortunate people who gets dog sick. But it's like house insurance really - for virtually every month in your life you don't need it but when you do you are kind of glad you took that little financial hit all along.
I think you will find as I stated early this is a good bonus but the point of immunisation is to protect the individual. If herd immunity was the goal a) it would have to be mandatory b) that goal would need to be achievable (it is not in the case of swine flu) c) you would have to really re-design how medical ethics works and politically force through some pretty unpopular law.
I am not saying the vaccine is bad just that it should be given on it's merits not some notion that we can all get herd-immunity when we can't even if we made the jab mandatory.
But your chances are drastically reduced and I fail to see people moaning about the TB vaccine where the effectiveness is quite poor. But hey that is not so news-worthy
My argument is that people need to make informed choices knowing that there are no absolutes for their own personal benefit. No you will not be perfectly safe whether you take the vaccine or not. Nothing is but would you rather not have your chances drastically reduced? Let me put it this way - how many people do you know that have got dog sick with flu in their life - now how many people do you know (no friend of a friend arm fell off) who have had a reaction to a jab, any jab, in their life. I think you will find you know far more people who have had bad cases of the flu. I think that makes its own case personally.
Whenever someone mentions evolution a nitefly dies inside
In all fairness, I think myself and drunkenmaster are approaching the issue from quite different angles here - I certainly don't think he is a stupid, uninformed idiot!
Viral evolution is an incredibly complicated thing based on many variables - there is really no black and white answers as to what will happen, so there is always a massive degree of speculation as to what might happen. It follows that you can use many of these aforementioned variables to make your predictions, with some of these variables (or reasons) being arguably more valid than others. Me and drunkenmaster have simply placed different weight on these different 'reasons' and thus appear to have conflicting viewpoints.
My own viewpoint is based on a quite a simplified model of viral evolution, and its weakness is its simplicity (there are other factors which obviously need to be taken into account, this goes without saying). However, the theory behind it is sound and logical - if virus A and virus B (B replicated faster - otherwise the viruses are identical) are both within a host, it will be virus B which will be the first to infect others and will out compete virus A at spreading through the population. Since faster replication correlates to greater virulence (more severe disease), the virus which has a greater virulence will always be selected for.
Of course, this isn't the end of the story because if the most virulent viruses were always selected for, then flu will have become a more and more serious disease throughout time, to the point now where it was 'instakill'. Instead, virulence is limited by it's own transmission (how communicable it is) and the dynamics of the host population in which in resides. Furthermore, other opportunities for selection include antigenic shift and antigenic drift)- this is how influenza viruses evolve to evade the human immune response and is why you can catch flu more than once (antigenic shift created the most recent outbreak of swine flu, which isn't as virulent as other flu viruses, yet is selected for due to the relative absence of pre-existing immunity).
So yes, it is very complicated, but the paragraph above does not negate that virulence is something which will be selected for. Instead, the factors in the paragraph above will to extents dynamically effect the selection for virulence, whether spatially or temporally. In other words, whilst the selection for a more virulent swine flu virus might not be obvious or instant, it will occur to extents, and it is extremely likely that the severity of circulating swine flu will increase.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,808
- Location
- Falling...
If you did you'd be on the edge of rule breaking as would anyone else using personal attacks.
Swine flu is little more than an umbrella term for potentially hundreds and thousands of different strains of viruses that have some swine based origin.
The very nature of influenza A (the technical name for the virus that causes flu) means that new strains will emerge from viruses that you are immune to, creating viruses that you are now not immune to. It follows that you can never be permanently protected against flu, which is why there are 'seasonal' flu jabs.
Accordingly, it is entirely possible to catch flu, swine or otherwise, after you have been immunised - but it does considerably reduce your chances of infection.
Faster replication does not equate to a more severe disease. Faster replication equates to faster replication. Disease severity can be thought more along these lines: - amount of virus x damage each virus causes = severity. Now moving on from that you also have to factor in where the virus does its damage. To take a stupid example, ten billion particles attacking your feet wouldn't cause half as much havoc as a million attacking your brain. The perfect virus and the one that would be most selected for is one which is highly communicable, replicates like a bunny in heat and does no real damage. This way its host can pootle around passing it on to all and sundry.
Faster replication and spread throughout a corresponding infection area does equate to a more severe stress on the human body and it follows that more stress on the human body is a more 'damaging' disease.
Secondly, please note that in my example, I said that between the two viruses, all other factors remain the same excluding the speed of their replication. Obviously, there are infinite other factors that could make a virus more harmful, but to add onto your 'brain' example, if there were two viruses which attacked the brain but one could swarm the brain and cause cell damage twice as fast as the other, that faster replicating virus is going to cause more stress to the human body than the other.
Viruses, and pathogens in general, are not selected to do less damage to their host, this is a completely discarded and ill-thought out theory. If a virus can replicate within a host, causing massive damage but is still able to be transmitted, then it doesn't give a damn about the damage it does to the host - the virus is still successful. This is why myxamatosis continues to completely annihilate rabbit populations around the world - there is no selection to do less damage. It follows that your description of a 'perfect' viruses, despite being sound on paper, would never happen since it is an evolutionary impossibility.
You understand how viruses replicate right? You know, the whole hijacking of your own cells to replicate virus material instead, pretty much impossible for them to operate without doing damage.
Stress does not equate with damage of disease that's not a given. But I do agree partly with what you are saying as you yourself stated all things equal.
And my perfect virus is not just sound on paper you could in some attribute it to the common cold. Contagious, pretty non-lethal and very widespread. Your argument is more line with some doomsday OMG its got loopy end type virus and I don't know about where you live but I haven't seen Dustin Hoffman around here in a silly suit lately.
You're totally right about virus's not deciding to be non-lethal or lethal but the simple fact remains that if you do not kill your host then there are more hosts to go around and pass on the good news. Yes you can kill and transmit and be successful but a perfectly successful route would be not to kill at all and be in everyone.
Wrong! the purpose of vaccination is primarily the generation of huge financial profit,In the U.S last year the industry generated a profit of $200 billion!
Of course, you really have to consider the ground theory that I provided in concordance with the virus in question. You cite the common cold, but remember that is fundamentally different in its virulence to Influenza A and it does not possess the same potential to cause a fatality by increasing the speed of its replication. In other words, the very way in which the common cold operates means that it is going to be limited to a mild infection and it cannot evolve into 'doomsday' virus that causes many deaths. This does not mean that the most virulent virus is not selected for, rather that the most virulent common cold virus cannot cause the same damage as the most virulent influenza A virus.
Again, if two viruses (X and Y) were identical (they even elicit the same immune response) except one (X) replicates faster, the slower replicating, less virulent virus will never be selected for.
Let's say that X takes 3 days of infection before it would be transmitted, whilst Y takes 4. One individual is infected with both viruses on day 0. Eventually, as both viruses pass through the population, there will eventually be a time period whereby the majority of individuals will have already been exposed to virus X before virus Y - as a result, Y cannot infect these people since they have an acquired immunity from being exposed to virus X. As a result, virus Y will be selected against.
It follows that it is not only the 'doomsday viruses' that select for increased virulence via increasing replication speed - all pathogens do, including common colds.
Again this is relying all on your initial all things equal and of course in the real world that never occurs. We kind of got distracted but never mind! Severity of disease is more to do with environmental factors anyway, treatment, immune response. For example EBV in PTLD.
Anyway interesting discourse (I think we all kind of agreed that vaccination is in the main good) but I will scoot now as Smit101 has entered and there is only so many conspiracy theories that one can handle before dinner.
Anyway interesting discourse (I think we all kind of agreed that vaccination is in the main good) but I will scoot now as Smit101 has entered and there is only so many conspiracy theories that one can handle before dinner.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,513
- Location
- West Sussex
I had for the 1st time last week the seasonal flu jab due to various health problems. Had this week the letter for the swine flu one but have declined simply due to the reasons it's not been tested enough and when all health officals have taken it 1st without refusing then i will take it
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 3,489
- Location
- At Home
There's also the small point of it only being 70-80% effective at preventing you getting it.
A large number of children under 5 getting the UK vaccine are also experiencing vomiting for 2 days after the jab. Surely that alone tells you that the vaccine is more hassle than it's worth and the body really shouldn't be having this.
And on another side note - The swedish vaccination program isn't much better:
http://theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1268%3Athey-got-sick-from-the-vaccine-in-sweden&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=64&lang=en
Can't see me ever getting this particular vaccine.
A large number of children under 5 getting the UK vaccine are also experiencing vomiting for 2 days after the jab. Surely that alone tells you that the vaccine is more hassle than it's worth and the body really shouldn't be having this.
And on another side note - The swedish vaccination program isn't much better:
http://theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1268%3Athey-got-sick-from-the-vaccine-in-sweden&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=64&lang=en
Can't see me ever getting this particular vaccine.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 7,089
- Location
- Swansea
Bloody swine flu stopped me going to mexico on my honeymoon!!! 3 days b4 i was due to go the outbrake happend..... grrr..
NM its all the in past went to Kenya instead.... great holiday!
Bit late post i know, but .... meh!
NM its all the in past went to Kenya instead.... great holiday!
Bit late post i know, but .... meh!