Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"HB 2220 Would allow the Executive Commissioner of the Health and Human Services Commission to require immunization against human papillomavirus or other immunizations for a person's admission to elementary or secondary school. (In committee 3/17/09)"
No. Only a tiny fraction of people get ill. And you make nothing from all the healthy people who didn't get vaccinated. You make more money vaccinating entire populations than you do treating a few sick people. That's how insurance works. Vaccinations are insurance.
It's irrelevant what a day in an ICU costs because the people who profit from the vaccines are not the same people who profit from the ICU. You don't go to the ICU to get a vaccination. The proper comparison is the cost of the vaccination versus the cost of the medication taken while sick. The rest of the cost of the hospital stay isn't part of the equation.
The cost/benefit analyses have been done. You can pretend they don't exist, but they do. Vaccines save the health care system money. You do not get to ignore some of the costs of treating flu and focus only on the drug costs. The rest of the cost of the hospital stay is definitely part of the equation, as is the cost of lost wages and lost productivity. You don't get to discount those costs just because you want to. You can pay a few pennies to the drug company for the vaccine or you can pay many dollars to doctors, hospitals, and drug companies if you get sick. If you run out of sick days and vacation days, you can stop getting paid, too. Then your employer has to hire someone else to do your job - perhaps temporarily or possibly permanently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason3000
So if one single child dies because of the flu, then the other 349,999,999 people in our country should be mandated to receive a vaccination that statistically, probably won't prevent them from getting the flu? I'm starting to think you really are a paid corporate shill.
It's the same paranoia mindset as the people who believe in the "War on Terror", "Global Warming" or that we need a Domestic NSA spy program. All emotionally driven, no logic or facts involved.
Remember, I'm not the one trying to force you to not have a flu shot. By all means, live in constant fear, inject your children with chemicals if you're that terrified of the flu. It's you, who's trying to force your beliefs on us. That means the burden of proof lies on you to prove your pint and you simply can't. Not only can you not prove your point, you can't even tell us the baseline data to begin a legitimate scientific debate such as how many people die from the flu, how many cases are prevented, etc. You literally have no facts or proof to prove anything. Fine, believe in the boogeyman, but when you try to force your kookery & voodoo science on my kids I'm going to fight you over it & win. I've got 3 kids with no flu vaccine attending school every day, deal with it.
Just because you do not understand the statistical methods used does not mean they are not valid. The flu vaccine is about 60% effective on average, some years more, some years less. It is more effective in some populations than others.
Infants less than 6 months old are protected by passive transmission of immunity from their mothers, if the mother takes the vaccine in pregnancy.
"Vaccine effectiveness among fully vaccinated children, compared with unvaccinated children, was 49%. Partially vaccinated children who were aged 6 to 23 months had no significant reduction in influenza (vaccine effectiveness: -70%), but partially vaccinated children who were aged 24 to 59 months had a significant (65%) reduction in influenza, compared with unvaccinated children."
Flu vaccine reduces visits for flu and pneumonia in young children:
The vaccine program is a key component in the larger goal of eugenics and population control/reduction. Now for most people, this is a very difficult reality to consider, because it is so psychopathic in nature, they cannot conceive of this type of evil existing. Yet this requires a hefty set of blinders since such evil is exposed every day in the daily news.!
The best response I can think of to this irrational train of thought is simply to quote you to yourself, from a previous paragraph.
Quote:
You never disappoint .... you can be counted on no matter what, to promote absurdity in every conceivable form .... hahaha. And it would be comically entertaining if the matter were not so serious and important.
For the benefit of those who didn't open Suzy_Q's link
"What is infuriating about these rants by the vaccine deniers is that not only is their scientific knowledge wrong about vaccines, so is their business knowledge. Of course, I shouldn’t be surprised given that almost all vaccine deniers exhibit the same characteristic–a few hours googling is equivalent to a Ph.D., or, in this case, and an MBA. It’s a perfect example of the Dunning–Kruger effect, a cognitive bias in which unskilled, and uneducated, individuals suffer from an illusory superiority of their knowledge and skills, which causes them to overestimate their abilities in critical thinking abilities and knowledge of a field as much higher than average. It continues to amaze me that these deniers (in whatever science, evolution, global warming and vaccines) think that reading a few pages on the internet is somehow equivalent to years of study." Big Pharma supports the antivaccine movement
And one of the crazy thing to me about anti-flu-vaxxers is that they just keep posting the same lies and distortions from their little echo chamber. Flu vaccine is not a product of Big Pharma, but rather of Little Pharma, nor is it particularly profitable. It's a surprisingly small and low-tech industry, growing out each year's new vaccine in fertilized eggs, then harvesting and purifying and packaging it for distribution. All this for a perishable one-to-a-customer product that retails for $15-30. It's no blockbuster, that's for sure. And the biggest fear for US public health officials is that these small producers may just throw in the towel at some point, forcing us to go to Europe or Asia for new supplies.
Another standard piece of the anti-flu-vaxx distortion field is that seasonal flu isn't really dangerous to normal, healthy adults. Only unhealthy infants and elders are at risk, goes their rant. My otherwise healthy middle-aged friend who died of the flu last year would be sure to disagree if he were still around, but of course he's still dead. What they've distorted is the correct medical message that infants, the sick, and the elderly are the MOST at risk, and hence the ones with the most imperative to get the shots. That recommendation is in no way meant to suggest that healthy adults are not at risk, because they are. An average of about 5,000 people die of flu in the US each year, ranging from 2,000 to 20,000, and about 1/3 of them are "otherwise healthy adults."
So really, who you gonna believe? A large agency full of dedicated scientists, like the CDC, which has the mandate and the means to determine the causes and best treatments for large scale disease infections... or some anonymous guy on an internet forum, who has nothing personal at stake, and who demonstrates all the classic characteristics of someone in the throes of the Dunning–Kruger effect?
Infants less than 6 months old are protected by passive transmission of immunity from their mothers, if the mother takes the vaccine in pregnancy.
Infants have added protection when their mother breastfeeds. How would you feel about laws that force all new mothers to breastfeed, or else face consequences?
What you said is that deaths of infants, the elderly, and those who are already ill are insignificant. If that is not what you intended to say, perhaps you woul like to clarify your position.
About 105 children died from flu related illnesses last year. About 90% had not had the vaccine. Sixty percent of those who died had underlying health problems, but 40% were otherwise healthy. But according to you, those 105 deaths are not worth considering. I suspect their parents feel differently.
In children, flu vaccine is 77 to 90% effective. That means if those kids had been vaccinated, perhaps 77 to 90 of them would still be alive.
The CDC is reporting "flu associated pediatric deaths". Can they be any more vague? The truth is that they don't really know what the true cause was for these deaths. The CDC admits that "the flu was likely a contributor to the cause of death, but not necessarily the primary cause of death." In other words, they don't know how many people die from the flu every year.
Regarding "flu related illness" This is yet another vague term that makes the stats regarding flu deaths meaningless.
Infants have added protection when their mother breastfeeds. How would you feel about laws that force all new mothers to breastfeed, or else face consequences?
Getting desperate, are you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
