100 Years Ago, Influenza Killed 50 Million People. Could It Happen Again? (usatoday.com) 270
Last year 80,000 Americans died of the flu -- and 900,000 more were hospitalized, according to estimates by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. NBC News reports:
The numbers were shocking. Until now, CDC has said flu kills anywhere between 12,000 and 56,000 people a year, depending on how bad the flu season is, and that it puts between 250,000 and 700,000 into the hospital with serious illness. The numbers for the 2017-2018 flu season go far beyond that... Usually, flu hits first in one region and then another, but this past season saw widespread flu activity all at once, for weeks on end.
Coincidentally, it's the 100-year anniversary of the great flu pandemic of 1918, according to an article shared by schwit1: Up to 500 million people -- about one-third of the world's population -- became infected with the influenza virus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. As many as 50 million died, or one out of every 30 human beings on the planet, killing more American troops than those that died on World War I battlefields. The intensity and speed with which it struck were almost unimaginable, the worst global pandemic in modern history.
The article asks the ultimate question: Could it happen again? Top health and science groups, such as the World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, predict influenza pandemics are nearly certain to recur. "Influenza viruses, with the vast silent reservoir in aquatic birds, are impossible to eradicate," the World Health Organization warned. "With the growth of global travel, a pandemic can spread rapidly globally with little time to prepare a public health response." A pandemic could also arise if a strain mutates with or develops directly from animal flu viruses, the CDC said...
In a near worst-case scenario, a new, lethal and highly infectious flu virus would break out in a crowded, unprepared megacity that lacks public health infrastructure, according to Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Heath. Such a fast-moving virus could burst from a city and catch a ride with international travelers before public health officials realize what is happening.
The article points out that today there's now safeguards to detect and counteract influenza outbreaks that didn't exist in 1918 (including outbreak-detecting systems, as well as better antiviral drugs and the ability to develop vaccines more rapidly). But it also reminds us that the 1918 flu pandemic killed more people in two years than the plague did in an entire century.
The CDC recommends that every year, anyone six months of age or older should get a flu vaccine. But I'd be curious to hear from Slashdot's readers. Have you gotten your 2018 flu shot?
Coincidentally, it's the 100-year anniversary of the great flu pandemic of 1918, according to an article shared by schwit1: Up to 500 million people -- about one-third of the world's population -- became infected with the influenza virus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. As many as 50 million died, or one out of every 30 human beings on the planet, killing more American troops than those that died on World War I battlefields. The intensity and speed with which it struck were almost unimaginable, the worst global pandemic in modern history.
The article asks the ultimate question: Could it happen again? Top health and science groups, such as the World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, predict influenza pandemics are nearly certain to recur. "Influenza viruses, with the vast silent reservoir in aquatic birds, are impossible to eradicate," the World Health Organization warned. "With the growth of global travel, a pandemic can spread rapidly globally with little time to prepare a public health response." A pandemic could also arise if a strain mutates with or develops directly from animal flu viruses, the CDC said...
In a near worst-case scenario, a new, lethal and highly infectious flu virus would break out in a crowded, unprepared megacity that lacks public health infrastructure, according to Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Heath. Such a fast-moving virus could burst from a city and catch a ride with international travelers before public health officials realize what is happening.
The article points out that today there's now safeguards to detect and counteract influenza outbreaks that didn't exist in 1918 (including outbreak-detecting systems, as well as better antiviral drugs and the ability to develop vaccines more rapidly). But it also reminds us that the 1918 flu pandemic killed more people in two years than the plague did in an entire century.
The CDC recommends that every year, anyone six months of age or older should get a flu vaccine. But I'd be curious to hear from Slashdot's readers. Have you gotten your 2018 flu shot?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Here we go again (Score:3)
It could be another disease, and it can happen again. The question is when.
Yeah, sure it can (Score:5, Insightful)
This is kind of a sticking point for me. I know lots of folks who, because something bad hasn't happened recently or to them or their immediate family, they think it's a non issue. Like those folks who were vehemently opposed to background checks for guns until they were shot at or folks in favor of single payer healthcare because they lost their jobs after a stroke. People's inability or unwillingness to extrapolate never ceases to amaze and infuriate me...
Re:Yeah, sure it can (Score:5, Interesting)
About the only thing that can be done is to devise some way of treating viral infections or shutting them down, Basically something like antibiotics that can take out the virus or destroy enough of it to prevent people from getting ill to the point that it becomes fatal.
Re:Yeah, sure it can (Score:5, Informative)
I have read many times that the flu shots will result in reduced symptoms, even if it doesn't prevent it entirely.
Flu shots will reduce the number of people who die from the flu.
Herd Immunity (Score:5, Informative)
There are a number of people who will contract the flu virus but never show any symptoms. These people will still spread the flu to their loved ones, co-workers, people on the train, etc.
This is why, "But I never get the flu," is not a good excuse for not getting the flu shot. Even though the flu shot does not work 100%, it still saves lives, and the more people who get the shot, the more lives that are saved. If people who "never get the flu" get the flu shot, more lives will be saved.
If you have any kind of insurance, the shot is free. If you don't have any insurance, the shot is free. Look around. I think CVS or Walgreens has a deal where you pay some small amount, say $5 for a flu shot and they give you $10 in coupons or something, but there are free shots for almost everyone.
Re:Herd Immunity (Score:5, Funny)
Last time I got a flu shot, it gave me autism. Now I am a better software developer because of it. So there is an added bonus.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why, "But I never get the flu," is not a good excuse for not getting the flu shot.
9 out of 10 people confuse the common cold with the flu. The remaining 1 in 10 never confuse the two again.
I've never met a person who's actually had the flu that hasn't gone and gotten the flu shot yearly afterwards. But then flu shots are pretty much free where I live (free for the at risk, free for low income people, free from most employers, and $10 for rich healthy self employed people).
Re:Herd Immunity (Score:5, Informative)
I believe that's a misconception. Flu can also be spread by touch or even just by breathing.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.c... [medicalnewstoday.com]
Re:Herd Immunity (Score:5, Interesting)
Flu spreads by droplets that are coughed or sneezed out. If you don't have coughing or sneezing symptoms, you aren't going to be an effective vector.
Until you kiss your spouse. Or forget to wash your hands before touching produce at the market. There are still plenty of ways to spread the flu - any only one of them needs to work in order to create a new, effective vector.
Re: (Score:2)
.... Until you kiss your spouse.
That depends on who else they have been kissing.
Re:Herd Immunity (Score:5, Informative)
Don't spread lies when people's health is at stake. When you hear talking about a flu vaccine that's for the wrong strain, it's never "useless". IN 2017, the flu shot was 30% effective. That's a huge reduction in hte number of vectors spreading the disease. And a lot of lives saved.
https://www.skepticalraptor.co... [skepticalraptor.com]
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If only it wasn't such a PITA to leave work to get a shot. Just deliver the damn thing to my home and I'll prick myself. Done!
Let’s hear you say that again as you’re locked in your apartment while “28 Monkeys” rages outside.
Re: Herd Immunity (Score:3)
One problem with the flu shot is that it is predictive. There have been many, MANY years where the "type" of flu vaccinated for, is not the type the spread through the population. Often, the shot is useless. The flu is really thousands of flus, sadly.
The flu vaccine is based on the most common strains of the previous year. Yes, it's somewhat predictive but have you ever considered that the reason the strain that is vaccinated against is not the one that is most common is *because* it is vaccinated against. That's what you would expect if a large percentage of the population is immune to a certain strain. You would expect that strain to not spread as much.
terminating the flu (Score:2, Flamebait)
New Zealand, 60 minutes [youtube.com]
Riordan Clinic [riordanclinic.org]
Most people only use injectable vitamin C to provide an initial improvement with 1-2 infusions, rather than reliably pump it down with 2-3 days of infusions, 3x per day at 0.7-1.1 grams per kg of body weight per infusion.
Likewise, higher dosages of vitamin D3 both improve initial resistance AND modulate or ameliorate things like
yes, it really works (Score:2)
IV vitamin C therapy has been embargoed by MSM for decades. Only a relative few have direct experience and/or technical backg
Re: (Score:2)
For the benefit of us all, please keep nit taking flu shots. We want the future to be free from your influence.
No lies: evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
Stop lying when lives are at stake. Medical professionals in the US are required to get the flu shots. It's not true only a small amount of them get it - 100% gets it
Sorry, but I'm not the one spreading lies. The vaccination rate among medical professionals in the US is high but well short of 100% according to this article [medscape.com]. Furthermore when not mandated the article states that the rate drops to 45%.
In Canada it seems the rates have increased somewhat in recent years but still around half do not get vaccinated as this, very pro-flu vaccine article [edmontonjournal.com] states. In BC making it mandatory has increased rates of vaccination to 80% but that's avoiding the point.
If the only way you can get medical professionals to have flu vaccinations is to force them to it raises very serious questions about how medically valuable this vaccination is. Trying to cast doctors as uncaring, as the Alberta article does, has not been my experience, Generally, they seem to just disagree that the shots are worth it due to the rapid-evolving, unpredictable nature of the virus. The recommendation I have always received is that when you get elderly it is worth it but for a normal, healthy adult the benefit is minimal.
Re: (Score:3)
This. Actually, at this point multiple studies have found that you save more elderly lives from the flu by giving children and young adult flu shots. The elderly get a benefit from flu shots-- but they make a weaker immune response from it than the young. The herd immunity effects from the flu shot are more significant for the old than the direct response.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For something like the flu, I don't think there's much that can be done. A huge chunk of the population gets it every single year and you can't really vaccinate against it effectively, so if it's a particularly deadly strain it's going to kill a lot of people.
I disagree with the first and agree with your second. After my first decade of life, I started getting serious lung infections and they came every two to four years. Usually it was some form of pneumonia and as a secondary infection from a simple cold or flu. It became a recurring fact of life. I would get sick several times a year, and sometimes it would bloom out into a lung infection. I used the stupid simple antibiotics (eg, amoxicillin) and even the "advanced" ones (azithromycin) but not much changed.
L
cigs and beer (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
When you gave up sugar...did you also simultaneously (and perhaps coincidentally) become less social? Go out to parties less frequently? Less sexually active, and with a much smaller (like, one or zero) group of people?
Because your story sounds a whole lot like mine. I used to get sick twice or so a year, every single year, sometimes getting lung infections requiring antibiotics. I tried many special diets and supplements, and nothing worked.
But I also became antisocial in my old age. I don't date. I
Re: (Score:2)
Some fungii and yeast live off sugar. So a nice dark warm moist place like human lungs combined with a free source of sugar is a perfect place to grow.
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't been seriously ill since I started working out, on average three times per week, which I've been doing for about four years now. Haven't reported sick at my job since then.
Sometimes I get a mild irritation in the throat or nose area, but then it heals away before it gets any worse. I've never had a flu vaccine. In contrast, some of my colleagues who did get the vaccine still got a bad cold. But I understand the vaccines always target a few strains that are most likely to proliferate. Sometimes you
Re:Yeah, sure it can (Score:5, Insightful)
- The influenza virus does not care about your low sugar diet.
- The a lung infection or full on pneumonia that is caused as a complication from the flu virus cannot at all be treated with antibiotics.
- Having no symptoms of the flu means that you didn't contract the flu, and not that your body is somehow magically better at fighting it. If you were fighting the infection you would be showing symptoms.
- There's NO such thing as a "simple" flu. You had a common cold.
As they say 9 out of 10 people confuse the flu with a common cold. The remaining people will never confuse the two again.
There's a lot that can be done (Score:5, Insightful)
That's another problem the world has (America especially). This idea that we can't do anything about these things. It's mostly from folks who, well, haven't really studied the topic. It's part of a general antipathy towards experts and "elites", a desire to not be told what to do and a desire to think that "common sense" can solve problems.
Thing is, the world is really, really counter-intuitive. There's so much in this world that doesn't work they way you think it would. Like how it's several times cheaper & more effective at stabilizing a nation to send some food aid than troops, but that if you overdo the aid local businesses can't thrive because they can't compete with free.
The world is a really, really complex beast. Even things we think are simple aren't. There's damn near nothing that couldn't do with a bit more study and care.
Re:There's a lot that can be done (Score:4, Informative)
when faced with a large outbreak. Aside from flu shots there's quarantine procedures, extra steps to be taken at hospitals and clinics, keeping water clean, etc, etc.
If you have a large outbreak and it's the kind of flu that knocks people straight on their asses instead of just giving them some sniffles and aches and pains, there aren't enough medical care facilities to handle ~10% of the population suddenly needing medical care to potentially prevent their deaths. Even if you get a flu that has a 10% mortality rate, with 10% of the population catching it, that's around 3.5 million deaths in the U.S. That's well over the annual number of deaths and having that many in a short window would create large issue in itself.
That's another problem the world has (America especially). This idea that we can't do anything about these things.
There are things that can be done (I would say you're probably going to have the best results by taking personal precautions than anything the government tries to do), but it's not as easy as saying that we've got a really good plan and expecting the universe to go along with it. As the saying goes, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Outside of having something akin to antibiotics that would be easily distributable and effective at treating the illness, most of what you might try to propose is just not going to be feasible or nearly as effective as you'd like. If you could have these big plans at a national level that actually worked anywhere near as well as we would like, the Soviets would have won the cold war.
If it gets that far you send in the national guard (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the problems with the 1918 epidemic was the the US Army was getting really well organized to provide emergency medical care. So when the first round of rapid spread influenza (now believed to have originated in a Kansas training depot) knocked down or killed the on-site nurses and doctors the Army rapidly shipped in replacements. Repeat that a fe
Re:Yeah, sure it can (Score:5, Insightful)
You can start your "coordinated response" with _mandating_ employers allow sick employees to either work from home where possible, or take time off. I realize a large portion of Slashdot may not have to endure that but there are a hell of a lot of people who DO. A single sick employee can take out an entire office. That includes basic HVAC maintenance (seriously change your damn filters).
Re: Yeah, sure it can (Score:2)
" That includes basic HVAC maintenance (seriously change your damn filters). "
This costs money and building maintenance is one of the first things that gets cut when a company is trying to cut costs.
They only take it seriously ( temporarily ) when someone gets sick due to poor maintenance and / or OSHA shows up unannounced because the employees who are forced to work in such conditions get tired of the bullshit from the company.
Re:Yeah, sure it can (Score:4, Informative)
Supportive health care has gotten MASSIVELY better since 1918, astronomically so. A similarly virulent strain would be bad, but nothing like as bad as it was, because a lot of people back then died due to lack of even basic supportive care.
Of course, no one said it had to be the same level of virulence, it could be much worse, so ignoring the possibility doesn't make sense.
Re:Yeah, sure it can (Score:5, Informative)
Supportive health care has gotten MASSIVELY better since 1918, astronomically so. A similarly virulent strain would be bad, but nothing like as bad as it was, because a lot of people back then died due to lack of even basic supportive care.
Of course, no one said it had to be the same level of virulence, it could be much worse, so ignoring the possibility doesn't make sense.
Yes, and not to mention the fact that, back 1918, there was extreme wealth inequality and the majority of people were poor and malnourished. It wasn't until after WWII that governments started to take public health and nutrition seriously because they realised that far too many military-age men we too unfit to fight for them in wars.
Public nutrition and health have got much better since 1918 but it is starting to look like it's starting to slip back with obesity, heart disease, child poverty, etc., making a lot of people very unhealthy and vulnerable to disease. Oh, there's a lot more elderly and infirm people around these days who are particularly vulnerable to the flu.
Unfit for military service? (Score:2)
What does unfit for military service even mean? This sounds like some excuse offered to a draft board to get excused?
"Sir, I am unable to do 5 chin-ups/pull-ups/whatever-kind-of-qualifying-callisthenic-to-qualify-for-military-service." "Too bad, son, you will have to stay home and wallow in shame to not be at the front with your friends, living out your natural lifespan with your limbs intact."
That's not what made the 1918 flu so deadly (Score:3, Interesting)
If the population today is generally healthier than in 1918, something like the Spanish Flu would be even more deadly today than it was then. (Though to be fair, we don't have a World W
Re: (Score:3)
The symptoms of the "Spanish" flu in 1918 were rapid onset, and extreme debilitation. Cities were completely overwhelmed by very seriously sick patients, who before, were "perfectly" healthy. Several of my ancestors died of it, small town residents. Children were left without parents.
It took as little as four to five days from onset of symptoms to death-- from the state of being an otherwise "healthy" person. People drowned in their own mucus, or had fevers that put them into in a variety of cardio jeopardy
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, sure it can (Score:4, Interesting)
It has gotten much better, but at the same time, resources are limited. During last year's flu season, the largest local hospital here had to bring in a mobile ER unit meant for disaster relief to handle overflow. It's not hard to imagine resources being completely overwhelmed if we get much worse one year.
Re:Yeah, sure it can (Score:5, Insightful)
if we don't have a strong, coordinated response to a large scale outbreak yeah, it'll happen again. We haven't magically evolved somehow. We're still vulnerable to the same crap we always were.
This is kind of a sticking point for me. I know lots of folks who, because something bad hasn't happened recently or to them or their immediate family, they think it's a non issue. Like those folks who were vehemently opposed to background checks for guns until they were shot at or folks in favor of single payer healthcare because they lost their jobs after a stroke. People's inability or unwillingness to extrapolate never ceases to amaze and infuriate me...
Though I think we're much better able to have a strong, coordinated response now than 100 years ago.
1) Our ability to treat sick people is a lot better.
2) Wide scale distribution of surgical masks is way more feasible now than 100 years ago.
3) Lots of people can work remotely if need be.
4) Hygiene is way better.
5) Schools could even be closed if need be, with remote learning options used as much as possible.
Sure these are progressively more drastic actions, but if we're hitting even a 1% fatality rate I suspect most go into effect.
Re: (Score:2)
We haven't magically evolved somehow
Yes we have. We are weaker. Bad diet, less physical activities, ...
Human bodies are becoming more dependent upon modern medicine, until medicine can’t cope...
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Our immune systems and overall health is so bad that a great many of us can't live without advanced medicine.
No, I did not get my flu shot in 2018. Or 2017. Because vaccines work and are reasonably safe. That's not a good thing, because we become reliant on vaccinations.
For evolution to work, we need higher death rates among children and young people. If everybody is selected for, there is no selection and no evolution.
Influenza and other diseases are culling factors that can help keep the herd
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is still sexual selection though. People like making babies with healthy looking partners.
True, there is sexual selection. But sexual selection isn't primarily about picking someone healthy looking, but picking someone likely to produce children that also are attractive as a partner. A peacock or bowerbird isn't ideal from a health perspective, but because females are likely to pick the most outrageous male, those are the genes that flourish. The only reason why peacocks don't have house sized tails is that they'd die before evolving that far.
In humans, that limitation of not being viable if
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, things are so bad that our average lifespan is only 150% of what it was back in 1918.
Hell, most of us won't even reach 100. Well, except for the people who are kids now. They'll probably reach 100....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, based on timestamps, it only took eleven minutes to bring guns into a completely unrelated discussion.
Not sure it's a record, but it's close....
Re: (Score:2)
based on timestamps, it only took eleven minutes to bring guns into a completely unrelated discussion. Not sure it's a record, but it's close....
A record long time or a record short time? I'd say it's about an average.
Re: (Score:2)
[...]Like those folks who were vehemently opposed to background checks for guns until they were shot at or folks in favor of single payer healthcare because they lost their jobs after a stroke. People's inability or unwillingness to extrapolate never ceases to amaze and infuriate me...
True story: I'm a physician. A couple years ago I was part of a team that treated a gentleman in the hospital who had a stroke, a heart attack, septic shock, and a quite large clot in the leg. He was in the ICU for several weeks, ended up with a heart stent and lost his left leg just above the knee. He was on short term dialysis, but thankfully his kidneys recovered.
He was quite thankful at the time to the hospital, the entire staff, etc. Less than a year later, he walked into my office. His insurance
Re: (Score:2)
Three months later he came in for a routine checkup. Still had the "bionic" leg, but complained to me that the leg charged the insurance carrier ~$20,000.
Ummm... Meant to say the company that made the leg. The leg didn't make a telephone call and (I think) isn't wifi capable.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh.. we've progressed a lot in 100 years. We have much better hygiene and sanitation practices than we did then, even without vaccines, which have also helped. My understanding is that a large portion of deaths to flu are in fact malnutrition and dehydration, which can be countered with IV fluids these days. Also better communication, though perhaps that's countered by the increase of misinformation to some extent.
While I'm sure epidemics and pandemics will continue to occur, the effects seem unlikely to
Re: (Score:3)
The Spanish flu, in particular the second wave, was different in that it killed a lot of healthy young people, quick. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Also this chart on life expectancy at various ages, in particular around 1918, https://ourworldindata.org/wp-... [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed a trend where people have reached a point of a true inability to extrapolate. Policy decisions are based entirely on feelings, not on facts or even immediate consequences, or the reliability of the story that gave them the feelings in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
We haven't magically evolved somehow. We're still vulnerable to the same crap we always were.
But the flu has evolved to be less virulent as killing the host is not a good survival strategy for a virus.
Re: (Score:2)
We haven't magically evolved somehow
Just writing to clarify a fine point: we have in fact evolved, despite there not needing to be any magic around to make that happen. Natural selection happened in a big way in the 1918 pandemic, and past that we've had a couple of generations to incorporate mutations. I'm not quantifying how much more immune to diseases in general we are because of that, and so in that sense am not disagreeing what one interpretation of your statement, but I don't want people to casually think either that evolution is ma
Re: (Score:3)
If 3 billion people kick the bucket from flu...
This is otherwise called the radical Greens’ wet dream.
Re: (Score:2)
A new strain of flu could kill many more than the 1918 pandemic. Viruses are changing every year just like they always have, the difference is that the transmission rate is exponentially faster today because of the global movement of people. The ability to manufacture new vaccines fast enough to stop a pandemic is not good enough to stop a it. A new global pandemic is certain, but when it will happen is unknown. Keep your fingers crossed and your thumbs held it will not happen in your lifetime, the odds of
But only the "wrong" kind of people (Score:3)
Because the herd needs thinning.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of victims, probably the vast majority, are people with one foot in the grave already, and the flu tips them over the edge. So less long term effect than if the victims were random like some other diseases.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I meant the sarcasm-impared. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
You guessed wrong. The 1918 pandemic was more lethal for healthy young fit adults because it was the strong response of their immune systems that killed them. Good luck!
Re: (Score:2)
s/brown/orange/
Re: (Score:2)
Please let it affect people with brown skin...
Though you are an anonymous coward and already modded down, I hope that should there be an epidemic, that you and all your loved ones are spared, along with your neighbors, and your neighbors neighbors, and that in the process you live to see charity coming from and distributed to all people, regardless of ethnicity.
That's my hope. However, I am quite prepared to deal with whatever 'alternatives' that less enlightened people, such as yourself, might try to force on others. When it comes to racism and hate
Re: (Score:2)
This is a legitimate question, along with:
* What would be the population of Russia today if the Soviets hadn't killed 20 million of their own people?
* What would be the population of China today if the Taiping Rebellion hadn't killed 50 to 100 million of their own people?
* What would be the population of the United States today if 800,000 people hadn't been killed in the Civil War?
The simplest model is just exponential math, and is quite easy. Take a look at:
https://www.rapidtables.com/ca... [rapidtables.com]
A very slight
Better question... (Score:2)
Will it bring people together to solve the problem and care for each other or will it make us even more isolated and insulated?
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately (see above), I think there is one simple answer to your question: yes.
As it's available, yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
> Have you gotten your 2018 flu shot?
They offer flu shots for free at my office. I have kids in school and elderly relatives, darn right I got it. Also I don't believe in crazy conspiracy theories, so no reason not to get one. Not sure why you want to know, but here it is.
Re:As it's available, yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Are they really free? Usually, they are from your medical insurance like your employer's.
Re: (Score:2)
>Also I don't believe in crazy conspiracy theories, so no reason not to get one"
It has nothing to do with "conspiracies." If you really did get a flu vaccine, then you SHOULD have been given a list of at least some of the reasons why it might be avoided. For some, severe allergic reaction (although a tiny percent). And for a much larger percent, getting flu-like symptoms if your immune system suddenly identifies the dead virus as an immediate threat and launches anywhere from a mild to extreme attac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely true, vaccination for other kinds of flu often imparts partial immunity. Remember that the very first vaccine was created after it was noticed that milk maids exposed to Cowpox never caught the killer Smallpox.
Re: (Score:2)
Vaccines are usually incubated in chicken eggs and some people are strongly allergic to the chicken egg protein, so there are good scientific reasons why some people cannot use the standard shot.
Two views... (Score:2)
(1) This would be terrible, no one wants to lose their friends, neighbors, or even their own life.
(2) World's overpopulated anyway -- humanity needs a good thinning to ensure survival of the species on an overburdened planet.
Haven’t gotten mine yet (Score:2)
The Pacific Northwest flu season tends to have a later onset, for whatever reason. So that, combined with my mad procrastination skillz, means I often don’t get around to getting the shot until November or even early December.
Bird Flu (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you did there...
Yes, I Got My Flu Shot. But Will It Work? (Score:5, Informative)
The main problem with flu shots is that they target a particular variety of influenza. Too often, that is the wrong variety for the pending influenza season.
Last season (2017-2018), my wife and I got our flu shots early in the fall. In the week just before New Year 2018, we both thought we were coming down with colds. The day after New Year, we felt sick enough to see our family doctor, who swabbed high in our noses. After dinner, he called us to tell us we tested positive for influenza.
Later that same night (still 2 January), my wife could not stop coughing. Since she had a heart problem (now fixed), I suggested that I should take her to the local hospital's emergency room. She did not want to go, but I insisted. She was hospitalized for a week with pneumonia although we were both current with both kinds of pneumonia shots. (According to our doctor, the two types of shots only protect against about 60% of the types of pneumonia.)
Each year, we still get our flu shots in the hope that, this time, the shots are targeting the variety of influenza that will be going around. My wife got her flu shot in August, and I got mine the beginning of this month (September).
An attempt to develop a universal flu shot is underway. The goal is not to target any one variety of influenza but instead to protect against all varieties.
Re: (Score:3)
Up until this year, Quebec has offered free flu shots to kids of 6-24 months and everyone over sixty.
But they've decided to cancel them this year for all but "at risk" individuals, not as a cost saving measure, but because they've concluded they don't really work. Or at least haven't for some years now.
http://www.iheartradio.ca/cjad... [iheartradio.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The kids didn't die before -- they just got the flu. I would guess that they hope they won't die this year either.
I understand their point to be that the kids who didn't get the shot (the parents can opt out) turned out to be, in general, no worse off than those who did.
Re: (Score:2)
Too often, that is the wrong variety for the pending influenza season.
Actually the flu shot is usually spot on for the most at risk variety of influenza of the season. That you still get the flu is a realisation that there are many variants of the flu out there and going around. Only the most widespread are targeted which makes you immune to about 40-60% of the strains out there.
That said 2017-2018 they did get it wrong. The WHO listed it as 10% effective partially due to targeted strain mutating between the hemispheres. But one bad year is a far cry from "too often". It's ac
no vaccination; strong natural immunity (Score:2)
Over many decades, I have had influenza 4 times: once after a vaccination back in the '70s (US Army insisted; probably a coincidence) that lasted 3 days; once in the '80s, about a week; once in the '90s, again about a week; and a few years ago, lasted about 10 hours (fever, chills, very sleepy; I know it was the flu because my road trip companion tested positive and was down for a few days after Tamiflu). She just had a full week, while I stayed over to take care of her, but didn't catch it. In high schoo
The solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't realize that. The difference between 0.95 and 1.05 is all the difference in the world when it's in an exponent.
Re:The solution (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the crazy part in the U.S. Even though we had a fairly bad outbreak last year, right after the 5 minutes of doom and gloom on the nightly news, they urged everyone to put the fear aside and go to the crowded malls for a few hours of intensive exposure and the all important shopping.
flu shot didn't help (Score:2, Interesting)
Is there such a thing as binary virus? (Score:2)
Like a binary nerve agent, each individual virus is relatively harmless. Each one by itself wouldn't raise a flag. Authorities might not even consider it a worthy endeavor to develop a vaccine. If they did, most people wouldn't feel the need to get inoculated. Only when a person contracts the second does it become fatal.
not only can, but most likely (Score:2)
Bollocks. Anyone who played Pandemic games (Score:2)
Shots aren't the issue (Score:2)
As I understand it, the danger lies in a virus that doesn't care if you had shots or not.
The Spanish Flu was an avian flu. To develop the shots, the labs have to make a guess at which one of the various stems is going to be the most prevalent for that season and then start producing the shots. That takes a couple of weeks or months (seems like it's weeks these days).
If a very aggressive strain would spread before anyone could develop something to counter it, it would spread uncontrolled - we'd have a pandem
Watch "Contagion" (Score:2)
Flu pandemic is one of the three "not ridiculously unlikely" emergencies our building picked for its "Emergency Preparedness" considerations. Basically, if something has a 1% chance per year of happening or better, then we'd include it. That came down to major earthquake, 100-year storm, and this, all of which can disrupt basic services and even food supply.
The movie "Contagion" shows a fairly realistic depiction of how such a pandemic could go, and food supplies do run short at one point, the army is handi
Not required (Score:2)
>>Stop lying when lives are at stake. Medical professionals in the US are required to get the flu shots. It's not true only a small amount of them get it - 100% gets it
>Sorry, but I'm not the one spreading lies. The vaccination rate among medical professionals in the US is high but well short of 100%
Where *I* live in the US, it absolutely is NOT required for healthcare workers. However, it is generally provided by the healthcare companies for its employees for free, and it is strongly encouraged.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Howdy from the midwest. I share your "Fuck you!", and pledge my support wherever you may be.
Re: Please let it... (Score:2)
It is unfortunate that western NY is in the same state as the rest of NY.
Maybe NY and PA could negotiate a land swap deal. Exchange eastern PA for western NY.
Re: (Score:2)
You first.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't be arsed to look it up, but wasn't it something to do with over-triggering the immune system?
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you have adequate diagnostic skills.
Re: (Score:2)
Doctors aren't infallible, but on medical matters they're probably the go-to people.
Your doctor is a doctor. Andrew Wakefield isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, an AC with a buddy who nearly died.
Right
Names dates and records or you're a liar. We really don't need this kind of anti-vax bullshit here.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, what seems like the flu in these cases is your body's immune system firing up to attack the virus (albeit an inert version). That's what is supposed to happen.
or you are so utterly weak against colds
This.
PP probably has such a small physical reserve to fight sicknesses that, were he to actually come down with a real one, it might kill him. These are exactly the sort of people who need the shots.