Skip to main content

View Diary: Glenn Beck And The Fringe View Of Pandemic Flu (382 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Risk is outweighed by the benefit. (3+ / 0-)

    You're wrong that that is a good reason to oppose it for this narrow subgroup of healthcare workers (who can always quit their jobs if their don't want to get the vaccine).

    And also, it's not really relevant whether it's "less virulent" than regular flu. The issue is that fewer people will have immunity against it because it's a new strain, so more people will get it. That means more people will die, even if the death rate per case were the same.

    •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

      I'm not "wrong." I feel on Constitutional grounds they have the legal right to oppose it, and I also feel they have the moral right to oppose it.

      I believe they have shown the mortality IS the same thus far. This is not inherently political. Though I would point out it is a bonanza for big Pharma. I'm sure that's merely coincidental.

      •  I didn't say the mortality rate was higher. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ebohlman, timewarp

        Read and understand what I wrote. I was saying that more people will die even if the mortality rate is the SAME, because more people will get it.

        They aren't being forced by the government to take the vaccine, so there isn't really any constitutional grounds. They're merely being forced to take it as a condition of a job since otherwise they would be putting vulnerable people at risk. As for a "moral right", I think it's far more immoral for someone who comes into contact with a lot of sick and vulnerable people to refuse the vaccine than it is to ask that they not put other people at risk.

        •  Well (0+ / 0-)

          You're surmising more people will get it based on it being a new strain. I'd like to see some supporting evidence for that assertion. What I understand is that no more people are dying from it than regular flu, which would actually indicate mortality rate is lower if it's infecting more people.

          Also, unless you're an actual Constitutional scholar, I don't think you really know whether there's a Constitutional issue or not. As far as morality, that's an opinion. I disagree, and am not interested in debating it, since my opinion is not going to change, nor is yours I would guess.

          •  That's the whole idea of a pandemic flu. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Pandemic flu by definition means it's infecting more people. It may well have a lower mortality rate, although that's hard to measure. I'm just stating what the risk is. And we do vaccinate even against seasonal flu, so I don't see why we shouldn't vaccinate against H1N1.

            •  Maybe vaccinating against seasonal flu IS (0+ / 0-)
              •  ::sigh:: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                We're having this discussion upthread. Most public health experts worldwide have rejected those UNPUBLISHED findings as a fluke. In any case, it doesn't make sense to rely on a single study that comes to a very counter-intuitive conclusion, before those findings can even be replicated or even examined by outside peer review.

                •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  But it's food for thought. They're not published because they're being peer-reviewed. If they had been published, they would be decried for not being peer-reviewed. Can't fault it for not being published if they're actually doing it the right way. They may be a fluke, they may not. Time will tell. But yes, I agree that policy should not be dictated by an unpublished study.

                  •  But at least (0+ / 0-)

                    We know that vaccines are all perfectly safe and effective, right?

                    •  No one said that. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      In fact, I have repeatedly said in this very thread that vaccines have risks. My viewpoint is not that they are perfectly safe, but that the risk of not getting them greatly outweighs the risk of getting them.

                      There is little reason to believe that the H1N1 vaccine will be more dangerous than other vaccines.

                      •  My basic problem (0+ / 0-)

                        Is forcing workers to do something that you're admitting is risky. Whether the benefits outweigh the risks is an opinion. I don't like the idea that employers (or the government) have the right to tell you to do something potentially harmful to your body or lose your job. What's to stop any employer from doing that? When all employers do it, can you just say "if you don't want to do it, find another job?"

                        •  Not really opinion. (0+ / 0-)

                          We can objectively study whether the risk associated with the vaccine is greater or less than the risk associated with the disease.

                          •  Mmmm, no (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            wa ma

                            You can quantify black and white things like risk of dying from the vaccine versus risk of dying from the swine flu, sure. How do you quantify something like getting sick from the vaccine, but not dying? Adverse reactions are on a spectrum, and probably mild reactions will never be tallied. But they count to the person that gets it. So you can study risk on black and white, measurable things like death, if you can even trust that accurate, complete data is going to be kept (I wouldn't assume that at all), but mild to medium illness from the vaccine is much harder.

                          •  I agree that it's somewhat difficult to study. (0+ / 0-)

                            But that type of research can be done, and has been done in the past.

                            Employers don't have a blanket right to force people to do something that carries a small risk like this. The only reason they can in this case is because it's deemed necessary for public health. In other words, it's not so much that they're forcing the workers to get the much as they're saying that the risks associated with them working with patients while unvaccinated are too great.

                  •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

                    That is an extremely reasonable response. Five and now possibly six Canadian provinces have suspended the regular flu vaccine because of their findings that it increases the chances of getting swine flu.

                    •  the data ought to be transparently published asap (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      wa ma

                      based on their response, and they should share it with the US (I assume they are).

                      I cannopt tell you if they are being premature with theior decision.

                      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                      by Greg Dworkin on Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 10:20:27 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  That actually disagrees with his... (0+ / 0-)

                      statement that "policy should not be dictated by an unpublished study".

                      •  It's fairly likely (0+ / 0-)

                        that the people making policy decisions have access to people who are as qualified to evaluate the study as the people on the peer review committee.

                        We have always known that heedless self interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. - FDR 1936

                        by AndersOSU on Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 10:36:17 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

      •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

        Courts have always interpreted the Constitution to allow coercive public health measures.

        All my IP addresses have been banned from

        by charliehall on Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 09:32:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site