Have You Prepared For The "Flu" And Do You Get A Flu Shot?

by minimus 191 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Hubby has had these shots these past 4 years, together with quite a severe flu attack each year. I'm going to continue to pass.

  Re-used since I am lazy:

  It's a vaccine tailored to a specific strain of the flu. It's not a guarantee. Was he tested by a doctor to see if you had the strain of flu you were vaccinated against? Or any flu at all, in fact? The vaccine requires your body to develop to proper immune response to prevent a real flu infection, if that doesn't happe, the vaccine will not help you. It also takes about 2 weeks for your body to develop anti-bodies against the flu you were vaccinated against. If you come into contact with the flu shortly after the vaccination, you will still get sick.

  That does not mean, however, it is not good for the general population.

  Entirely Possible, please get out of here with your science facts and data. I prefer to use my gut instinct and garbage science I learned from Oprah and Dr. Oz.

  Perhaps instead we should give out enemes filled with curry, scotch bonnet pepper sauce and orange juice to keep the flu away.
• 

  caliber

  Hubby has had these shots these past 4 years, together with quite a severe flu attack each year. I'm going to continue to pass.

  Loz x

  what I meant was that receiving the flu shots each year during that four year period never prevented me from getting the flu

  .

  FACT.... on National news today in Canada

  Flu vaccine about 45% effective this year

  http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2013/01/16/flu-vaccine-effectiveness.html
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Fact? FTA:

  This season's flu vaccine in Canada is about 45 per cent effective, early data from doctor's offices suggest.

  Several hundred volunteer physicians in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec are monitoring "in real time" how the vaccine protects people.

  "We measure that the vaccine approximately cuts the risk of illness due to that virus by about half," said Dr. Danuta Skowronski of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, who oversees the network of doctors. "So that's substantial protection."
• 

  caliber

  The 45% reduction in influenza attributed to the vaccine refers to the relative risk reduction. This stat is criticized as it embellishes the effectiveness an intervention. In medical decision making this is referred to as framing bias. One might expect to hear a pharmaceutical representative to use a relative risk reduction in support of their treatment. However, it is inappropriate for a physician to use. A more appropriate value is the absolute risk reduction. For the influenza vaccine, this generally ranges from 1 to 3%. This means you would need to vaccinate between 33 and 99 people in order to prevent one case of flu like symptoms.

  Consider a hypothetical drug which reduces the relative risk of colon cancer by 50% over five years. Even without the drug, colon cancer is fairly rare, maybe 1 in 3,000 in every five-year period. The rate of colon cancer for a five-year treatment with the drug is therefore 1/6,000, as by treating 6,000 people with the drug, one can expect to reduce the number of colon cancer cases from 2 to 1.

  The raw calculation of absolute risk reduction is a probability (0.003 fewer cases per person, using the colon cancer example above). Authors such as Ben Goldacre believe that this information is best presented as a natural number in the context of the baseline risk ("reduces 2 cases of colon cancer to 1 case if you treat 6,000 people for five years"). [ 3 ] Natural numbers, which are used in the number needed to treat approach, are easily understood by non-experts

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_risk_reduction
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Vaccinations are good. Glad we agree.
• 

  caliber

  

  Vaccinations are good. Glad we agree.

  I red arrow did wonders for sure
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  I red arrow did wonders for sure

  Sorry, is that supposed to mean something? Symbolic of your missing the target with the word "fact", perhaps?
• 

  caliber

  Consider a hypothetical drug which reduces the relative risk of colon cancer by 50% over five years. Even without the drug, colon cancer is fairly rare, maybe 1 in 3,000 in every five-year period. The rate of colon cancer for a five-year treatment with the drug is therefore 1/6,000, as by treating 6,000 people with the drug, one can expect to reduce the number of colon cancer cases from 2 to 1.

  In this situation math facts say there is a reduction of 50% colon cancer

  But is it not even more important to know the realistic expectations for this drug ?

  I agree the word fact can be abused and misused ...............sorry

  Those who deliberately minipulate facts for profit have the most accountabilty I feel however.
• 

  AGuest

  While the discussion is about the flu shot specifically, it seems to also be about the reliability... of the medical field's assertion of realiability... which is what I spoke to. That I included information of a personal nature to support my comments is on-topic: I spoke from what I KNOW... PERSONALLY... and not what I read/believe based on what someone else asserts.

  Be that as it may, again, the decision is simple: if you get a flu shot you just may get sick. VERY sick. If you don't, you may get sicker, even die. Thankfully, all have a choice and can make a decision. Just make a FULLY INFORMED decision, which includes hearing BOTH sides... and neither side poo-poo'ing... or trying to bully... the other. Bullies tend to do so because they're hiding something: insecurity, uncertainty, etc., although they want to appear self-assured and "knowledgable."

  Put your thoughts out there... and don't take it PERSONAL if you're not believed. If you're right... then it's those who don't listen's loss. If they do, then it's their gain... and yours.

  But leave your personal insecurities about NEEDING people to agree with you/see things YOUR way... such that when they don't you get all cranky and bent out of shape and start hurtling absolutely false and unintended motives... at home. Or at the Kingdom Hall, where it's practiced and welcomed.

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  tec

  Consider a hypothetical drug which reduces the relative risk of colon cancer by 50% over five years. Even without the drug, colon cancer is fairly rare, maybe 1 in 3,000 in every five-year period. The rate of colon cancer for a five-year treatment with the drug is therefore 1/6,000, as by treating 6,000 people with the drug, one can expect to reduce the number of colon cancer cases from 2 to 1.

  The raw calculation of absolute risk reduction is a probability (0.003 fewer cases per person, using the colon cancer example above). Authors such as Ben Goldacre believe that this information is best presented as a natural number in the context of the baseline risk ("reduces 2 cases of colon cancer to 1 case if you treat 6,000 people for five years"). [3] Natural numbers, which are used in the number needed to treat approach, are easily understood by non-experts

  That was interesting, Cal. Thanks for putting that out there, to help some of us see the difference.

  (Its like in taxes. You get to have a tax credit for your medical bills up to 300.00 (just guessing at a number), and that amounts to no more than a few dollars difference in what you owe. Sounds better than it actually IS.)

  Most of us don't know, and so we trust our doctors TO know. They usually know more than most of us do... BUT... sometimes they don't. So the best thing of all, would be for us to also know as much as we can, to make a more informed decision. There should be no problem with this here.

  Peace,

  tammy