Swine Flu Immunisation

Freefaller said:
Personally I'd say no if it were offered to me - but that's a personal choice. I'd never recommend either way for any body else. I just don't need it. :)
Click to expand...

That's fair enough, but from a public health point of view, you are allowing the pandemic to continue by not being immune.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
That's fair enough, but from a public health point of view, you are allowing the pandemic to continue by not being immune.
Click to expand...

It's no more prevalant than regular flu, and I don't believe flu jabs necessarily are required. Having the jab doesn't make you miraculously immune either, it just reduces the chance of you getting it. Personally I don't like putting chemicals into my body that I don't understand or need - from what I've read, there's just no need for it if you're healthy. I'm healthy and not had so much as a cold or a disease in my life *touches wood*. Why change it now?

It's all misleading this "pandemic" they shout about - it really isn't such a big deal.

Furthermore there is just as much evidence for it as there is against it. So why take a 50/50 chance?

If you're frail or have an existing condition then of course it's sensible, but other than that, not thanks.
 
Freefaller said:
It's no more prevalant than regular flu, and I don't believe flu jabs necessarily are required. Having the jab doesn't make you miraculously immune either, it just reduces the chance of you getting it. Personally I don't like putting chemicals into my body that I don't understand or need - from what I've read, there's just no need for it if you're healthy. I'm healthy and not had so much as a cold or a disease in my life *touches wood*. Why change it now?

It's all misleading this "pandemic" they shout about - it really isn't such a big deal.

Furthermore there is just as much evidence for it as there is against it. So why take a 50/50 chance?

If you're frail or have an existing condition then of course it's sensible, but other than that, not thanks.
Click to expand...
The problem with swine flu is that less people have any pre-existing immunity to it. Here's an example to demonstrate the problem, although I will remove some of the complexities of influenza evolution to make it clearer.

Let's say that in a given population of 100, 50 individuals have immunity to a circulating influenza strain of the human variety (virus X). Let's also say that 5 of these individuals have immunity to a circulating strain of swine flu (virus y). Let's also say that 5 individuals are currently carrying virus X and five are currently carrying virus Y. With all other factors the same, virus Y is going to whip through the population far quicker than virus X, not only because it can infect more people, but most importantly, there are more individuals who can carry and subsequently transmit the virus.

These figures are naturally plucked out of the air, but they represent the scenario we have in front of us with swine flu. By not being immunised, you can spread the virus on towards others. The fewer people that are immunised, the quicker it will spread to those who are at risk from the disease, such as the elderly.

I'm really not sure what you are referring to by some sort of 50/50 chance - the corresponding flu jab is just as safe as any other.
 
From reports for and against the swine flu vaccine. There are as many for and as many against it - hence 50/50, hence why I don't see the point.

I'm only talking for me - I'd never enforce or tell others what to do with their bodies/lives, it's their choice.

I'm making an informed decision. Even if I were to get it, it'll hardly be dramatic and I'd rather defeat it naturally than artificially. :)
 
You know what really annoys me about this swine flu malarky...

Papers report that there have been X number of swine flu cases this week, but,

If you show any signs of fever etc, you are not allowed to go to see the doctor and have to designate a family member / friend to go and pick up a treatment of tamiflu, case is diagnosed as swine flu case closed. This could easily be a hypochandriac (sp) with a slight cold lol.

My point is, how the hell can they say it's swine flu and report in the paper when nobody can be sure as symptoms are so similar to commo flu - and even a common cold in somecases.

Blown well out of proportion in my opinion.

Please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong though, i'd appreciate it :)
 
Nitefly said:
Vaccination is not the only source of GBS...
Click to expand...

Influenza vaccines and GBS

GBS may be a rare side-effect of influenza vaccines, with an incidence of about one case per million vaccinations.[11] There were indeed reports of GBS affecting about 500 people who had received swine flu immunizations in the 1976 U.S. outbreak of swine flu — 25 of which resulted in death from severe pulmonary complications, leading the government to end that immunization campaign[12]. However, the role of the vaccine in these cases has remained unclear, partly because GBS had an unknown but very low incidence rate in the general population making it difficult to assess whether the vaccine was really increasing the risk for GBS. Later research have concluded to the absence of or to very small increase in the GBS risk due to the 1976 swine flu vaccine[13]. Further, the GBS may not have been directly due to the vaccine but to a bacterial contamination of the vaccine.[14]

Since 1976, other influenza vaccines have not been linked to GBS, though as a precautionary principle caution is advised for certain individuals, particularly those with a history of GBS.[15][16] On the other hand, getting infected by the flu increases the risk of developing GBS to a much higher level (approx. 10 times higher by recent estimates[17]) and, all in all, the flu vaccination contributes to protect against the risk of GBS[18].

A rare case of Guillain-Barre syndrome within hours after receiving the H1N1 vaccine for swine flu was first reported early November 2009.[19]
 
Freefaller said:
From reports for and against the swine flu vaccine. There are as many for and as many against it - hence 50/50, hence why I don't see the point.
Click to expand...
What points against it specifically make you think there is a 50/50 for and against? I'm not being funny, but I honestly can't think of any arguments against (discounting the aforementioned one in a million chance of GBS).

Even if I were to get it, it'll hardly be dramatic and I'd rather defeat it naturally than artificially. :)
Click to expand...
Well, it certainly won't be a pleasant experience.
 
Last edited:
AdamDaniels88 said:
You might get a swollen arm, from what I've heard.
Click to expand...

An aquiantence of mine (med student) had his a last week and had a very sore arm for a few days.


Out of interest how many people have actually died of swine flu so far in the UK? Considering we are well into flu season there should be thousands dropping every week, however there is nothing in the papers or on the news about it so that leads me to think there is a global conspiracy covering all the deaths up... Or it's just another overhyped cold bug, like bird flu, SARS and the many others over the last 10 years....

Personally I wouldn't take either the vaccine or Tamiflu, i'd rather have the extra day of slight illness and stay at home than make my illness appear worse by using Tamiflu to save myself a day...
 
Nitefly said:
Well, it certainly won't be a pleasant experience.
Click to expand...

It's no worse than the standard flu for most people (and those others are usually the at risk group anyway so not much worse for them either), however Tamiflu on the other hand...:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom