Got a flu shot yet?

Help Support CattleToday:

Logar said:
Never will. Too many unknowns and uncertainties in the "medicine must be stuck in to you" world we are starting to see grow in a crazy way.

IMO Not every needle is good for you no matter what the medical folks say.
Does that mean you don't believe in cattle vaccines?
 
Jeanne - Simme Valley said:
Logar said:
Never will. Too many unknowns and uncertainties in the "medicine must be stuck in to you" world we are starting to see grow in a crazy way.

IMO Not every needle is good for you no matter what the medical folks say.
Does that mean you don't believe in cattle vaccines?

Not at all.

The flu vaccine is predicted - therefore it is not completed on known viruses as vaccines are - it is created on what the scientific experts believe will be the biggest trouble in the upcoming year for flu viruses.

So the cattle vaccine is done with science and medicine.

The flu shot is done with a "best guess" about the future troubles winter will bring next season.

So the shot you get might have not even one of the vaccines for the problems germs for the up coming season. And by the way that HAS happened.

Cheers
 
Shoot me, but that's a weak argument Logar. The flu vaccine offered is the best they can do and it saves lives and a lot of misery. I've never had the flu or gotten a flu shot but I sure wouldn't discourage anybody else from getting vaccinated.
 
Logar - I totally understand what you are saying. Yes, it's a shot in the dark - but - "MOST" of the time, it is helpful. Lot of people (mostly elderly & infants) die from the flu. If they can save 10% of them - it's worth it.
 
Jeanne - Simme Valley said:
Logar - I totally understand what you are saying. Yes, it's a shot in the dark - but - "MOST" of the time, it is helpful. Lot of people (mostly elderly & infants) die from the flu. If they can save 10% of them - it's worth it.

It is not a shot in the dark. Logar is as close to being an epidemiologist as I am to being the creator of the Universe. It is beyond further comment.
 
Bright Raven said:
Jeanne - Simme Valley said:
Logar - I totally understand what you are saying. Yes, it's a shot in the dark - but - "MOST" of the time, it is helpful. Lot of people (mostly elderly & infants) die from the flu. If they can save 10% of them - it's worth it.
It is not a shot in the dark. Logar is as close to being an epidemiologist as I am to being the creator of the Universe. It is beyond further comment.

You don't need to be an epidollywhatever to see Logar has a valid point of view. Agree or disagree it is a very valid point of view.
 
Redgully said:
Bright Raven said:
Jeanne - Simme Valley said:
Logar - I totally understand what you are saying. Yes, it's a shot in the dark - but - "MOST" of the time, it is helpful. Lot of people (mostly elderly & infants) die from the flu. If they can save 10% of them - it's worth it.
It is not a shot in the dark. Logar is as close to being an epidemiologist as I am to being the creator of the Universe. It is beyond further comment.

You don't need to be an epidollywhatever to see Logar has a valid point of view. Agree or disagree it is a very valid point of view.

Ga.prime addressed the issue well. I don't want to comment on Logar's post any further.

Worth repeating, ga.prime:

Shoot me, but that's a weak argument Logar. The flu vaccine offered is the best they can do and it saves lives and a lot of misery. I've never had the flu or gotten a flu shot but I sure wouldn't discourage anybody else from getting vaccinated.
 
older folks with emphysema or other chronic lung disorders might take a little shot for just in case. a little sickness may turn into pneumonia for some and land you in the hospital.

never use to get a flu shot, but now i'm going for it even if it may or may not be effective. if there is a 5% chance of not getting the flu verses the flu, pneumonia, and a possible hospital stay, why not.
 
Bright Raven said:
Jeanne - Simme Valley said:
Logar - I totally understand what you are saying. Yes, it's a shot in the dark - but - "MOST" of the time, it is helpful. Lot of people (mostly elderly & infants) die from the flu. If they can save 10% of them - it's worth it.

It is not a shot in the dark. Logar is as close to being an epidemiologist as I am to being the creator of the Universe. It is beyond further comment.

It is an educated guess not a total shot in the dark.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-selection.htm
 
Davemk said:
Bright Raven said:
Jeanne - Simme Valley said:
Logar - I totally understand what you are saying. Yes, it's a shot in the dark - but - "MOST" of the time, it is helpful. Lot of people (mostly elderly & infants) die from the flu. If they can save 10% of them - it's worth it.

It is not a shot in the dark. Logar is as close to being an epidemiologist as I am to being the creator of the Universe. It is beyond further comment.

It is an educated guess not a total shot in the dark.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-selection.htm

There are no absolutes in immunization but to think they just throw crap on the wall and see what sticks is ignorance.

At the end of the day, flu vaccines are 45 to 60 percent effective. A lot of science goes into that formula. The flu viruses evolve rapidly. By the time teams of virologist and immunologist all over the globe decide what strains to put in the vaccine, the little devils have already changed their molecular biology.
 
Davemk said:
This years flu shot was decided upon last February. The last 3 years avg efficacy is under 30%.
Maybe this year they get it right as there was a bad flu season in Australia this year and it usually is a good predictor of the US flu season.
 
I use the tried and true method of avoiding people to keep the flu away. 100% success rate. Failure occurs when sickos come and make unexpected visits - just more proof that society is out to get me.
 
Jeanne - Simme Valley said:
Anyone know anything about the new "vaccine flu shot for elderly" (ME)? Walmart is on the ad.

The shot you are asking about is a high dose vaccine that is supposed to cover 3 strains of the flu. There are more side effects with it such as fever and swelling the week after the shot, but it does offer more protection.

herofan said:
callmefence said:
I've never had a flu shot and I never get the flu.
My wife has to get one because she works medical. She gets the flu a couple times a year.

I've never had a flu shot either; I work in the school system and still have never had the flu.

Wow, I won't say that it is mandatory, but at my wife's school, they even bring a nurse in to give highly discounted shots to teachers and staff.
 
sstterry said:
Wow, I won't say that it is mandatory, but at my wife's school, they even bring a nurse in to give highly discounted shots to teachers and staff.

That's done at my school too, but I've never taken it. It's just something I've never done. I may change my mind someday.
 
Aaron said:
I use the tried and true method of avoiding people to keep the flu away. 100% success rate. Failure occurs when sickos come and make unexpected visits - just more proof that society is out to get me.

I agree with your method and success rate. Living in an area with very few people also helps. And those people living in the area are considerate enough to stay home when they are sick is a big plus to this method.
 
Davemk said:
This years flu shot was decided upon last February. The last 3 years avg efficacy is under 30%.
What was the efficacy of the control group? (those who didn't get the flu shot)
 

Latest posts

Top