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.
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.
Let's try to make this very simple. If you get flu, then you get bacterial pneumonia on top of lungs already damaged by flu, then you die, the reason you died was because you got flu. If you did not have lungs already weakened by flu, you likely would not have gotten the bacterial pneumonia, but if you did it could have been treated with antibiotics and cured.
The number of deaths of people who get flu varies a lot from year to year. it would be wonderful if we could count each one based on a diagnosis proven with a lab test. That is not possible. For one thing, some people will test negative for flu by the time they are sick enough to be hospitalized.
The statistics are valid. They do describe the burden of influenza related illness and mortality. The stats are not meaningless. You just do not understand them. Underlying the methodology is data on laboratory confirmed cases of influenza. The numbers are not just the figment of someone's imagination, as you imply.
By the way, you say no one knows the number of deaths from influenza. If that is true, then it is just as likely that the statistics are understating the number of deaths.
Four children have died so far this year. Last year, 170 died. As noted in a previous post, 90% of the children who died were not vaccinated.
You continue to deny that influenza is a dangerous disease while you worry about aluminum in vaccines. You are obsessing about ninjas when you really should be worrying about alligators.
I have no idea why you would say that. You and Bloomberg are all for legislating behavior that you feel will reduce death. It should not be a mystery to someone like you who seems to have connections to the medical industry, that breastfeeding saves lives. If you are all for legislating behavior and stomping on people's rights as human beings in a misguided effort to save lives, why not legislate all behavior and save even more lives?
This is the slippery slope argument that evades most flu-shot advocates logic
Yes. I wonder how they will feel when they are forced to do something that goes against their beliefs under penalty of law. They are giving up our rights when they stand behind legislation like this. They are also giving up their own rights and the rights of their children and grandchildren. The slope really is slippery. One would have to be blind not to recognize this.
Sorry MangoMarie but the main issue here is not "the flu vaccine". The main issue here is the government legislating medical interventions for certain groups of people with consequences, if they refuse. If the government can get away with legislating one type of medical intervention, then it opens the door to legislating other types of medical intervention. We are already well down the slippery slope since the flu vaccine was not the first vaccine to be legislated as mandatory for school admission. If you are extremely pro vaccine, like suzy, then you likely see this as a victory. If you feel differently then you are among the groups of people who may be forced to receive an injection that you may not feel is safe and/or effective or one that goes against your beliefs.
My body belongs to me and only me. Not the state. It is a huge overreach of government to be making medical decisions for people and actually forcing them to inject substances into their bodies against their wishes. It is a slippery slope. Open your eyes and you will see that the slippery slope is real. I cannot understand how people cannot see this. It's beyond obvious.
I have no idea why you would say that. You and Bloomberg are all for legislating behavior that you feel will reduce death. It should not be a mystery to someone like you who seems to have connections to the medical industry, that breastfeeding saves lives. If you are all for legislating behavior and stomping on people's rights as human beings in a misguided effort to save lives, why not legislate all behavior and save even more lives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz
This is the slippery slope argument that evades most flu-shot advocates logic
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Sorry MangoMarie but the main issue here is not "the flu vaccine". The main issue here is the government legislating medical interventions for certain groups of people with consequences, if they refuse. If the government can get away with legislating one type of medical intervention, then it opens the door to legislating other types of medical intervention. We are already well down the slippery slope since the flu vaccine was not the first vaccine to be legislated as mandatory for school admission. If you are extremely pro vaccine, like suzy, then you likely see this as a victory. If you feel differently then you are among the groups of people who may be forced to receive an injection that you may not feel is safe and/or effective or one that goes against your beliefs.
My body belongs to me and only me. Not the state. It is a huge overreach of government to be making medical decisions for people and actually forcing them to inject substances into their bodies against their wishes. It is a slippery slope. Open your eyes and you will see that the slippery slope is real. I cannot understand how people cannot see this. It's beyond obvious.
MangoMarie beat me to the reason the slippery slope argument does not work. No one is forced to be vaccinated. You have a choice. Choosing not to vaccinate might make certain public services unavailable to you. You may either stay home with your child or vaccinate her and send her to day care. At some point, you home school.
The sad thing is that people who refuse to vaccinate their children are basing that decision on very poor information from sources that just hate vaccines for the sake of hating vaccines - and making money from the things they sell on their websites.
MangoMarie beat me to the reason the slippery slope argument does not work. No one is forced to be vaccinated. You have a choice. Choosing not to vaccinate might make certain public services unavailable to you. You may either stay home with your child or vaccinate her and send her to day care. At some point, you home school.
The sad thing is that people who refuse to vaccinate their children are basing that decision on very poor information from sources that just hate vaccines for the sake of hating vaccines - and making money from the things they sell on their websites.
So, you think that mandatory flu vaccinations are not a probable scenario?
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.
