patrick.net

If you recall the ebola scare, they couldn't keep people exposed to Ebola from climbing on planes and flying where ever. One was a nurse, who proclaimed her right to be free and travel and was even pursuing civil liberties claims about it.

When it comes to disease and epidemiology, you will never keep the snakes in the basket. It's population dynamics for a segment of the population to spread the shit against all sense and caution, come hell or high water. That's why diseases will always be smarter than we are. Our disease brains are in our evolved genes, honed through slaughter and evolution, not common sense.

Vaccinate everyone, whether they want it or not! If the War on Us has taught us anything, it's that telling people what they can and can't put into their bodies is a guaranteed model for success!

curious2 says

Should hospital and school employees be required to get vaccinated against influenza?

No.

For one, school and hospitals aren't the only place people travel to where they can be exposed.

Second, if someone doesn't take the vaccine, they know they can catch the flu, it's not a surprise. They have to deal with the consequences. They can only spread it to others who choose NOT to be vaccinated.

Third, if someone is concerned that they or their kids might catch the flu, then they can choose to get vaccinated.

Fourth, the annual vaccinations have proven that they don't prevent contracting the flu. Usually they miss one of the flu strains that show up. So, you have a 1 in 3 chance of getting the flu even WITH getting the vaccine.

MrMagic says

school and hospitals aren't the only place people travel to where they can be exposed.

The difference is whether they have a choice to go there or not. If people want to avoid traveling during flu season, they can shop online and many can work from home. In contrast, hospital patients and schoolchildren have little or no choice about being exposed to the employees in those facilities.

MrMagic says

They can only spread it to others who choose NOT to be vaccinated... they can choose to get vaccinated.

That's false, and contradicted by your subsequent statement below. Some people are ineligible for vaccination, due to other problems, so they have no choice.

MrMagic says

the annual vaccinations have proven that they don't prevent contracting the flu.

Vaccination reduces significantly the risk of getting infected and spreading infection. Vaccines work especially well at creating "community immunity," preventing the virus from spreading through a population, e.g. a school. That is why vaccination is the most effective method to prevent influenza.

curious2 says

In contrast, hospital patients and schoolchildren have little or no choice about being exposed to the employees in those facilities.

So, like I said above, if they want to travel there, it's on THEM to get a flu shot, NOT the people working inside the buildings.

curious2 says

That's false, and contradicted by your subsequent statement below. Some people are ineligible for vaccination, due to other problems, so they have no choice.

Like what. They can go get a flu vaccine for $10 at any walk in clinic or health department. If they're so worried, $10 should be worth it, right? Why should I have to take the vaccine because you're too cheap to get it for yourself? If, for health reasons they can't take it, then they should stay away from the public. Why do you guys always insist the government needs to protect people from themselves????

curious2 says

Vaccination reduces significantly the risk of getting infected and spreading infection. Vaccines work especially well at creating "community immunity," preventing the virus from spreading through a population, e.g. a school. That is why vaccination is the most effective method to prevent influenza.

Really??? Like LAST year?

...."During the brutal 2017-2018 flu season, the CDC said the vaccine was only about 36% effective, with particularly low efficacy against the H3N2 strain. "
http://time.com/5415276/flu-shot-2018/

Great odds, aren't they?

MrMagic says

curious2 says

That's false, and contradicted by your subsequent statement below. Some people are ineligible for vaccination, due to other problems, so they have no choice.

Like what.

You can read about contraindications here. See also this.

MrMagic says

curious2 says

In contrast, hospital patients and schoolchildren have little or no choice about being exposed to the employees in those facilities.

So, like I said above, if they want to travel there, it's on THEM to get a flu shot, NOT the people working inside the buildings.

What if they don't want to travel there, but have to anyway? Also, schoolchildren are generally required to get vaccinated, unless they are ineligible.

MrMagic says

Why do you guys always insist the government needs to protect people from themselves????

Who are "you guys" and where is this "always" happening, and why so many question marks? Are you seeing double, or hearing voices in your head? If you have recently suffered a head injury, you might want to visit your nearest acute care hospital. For your sake, I hope the staff got their vaccines, to reduce your risk of becoming one of the hundreds of thousands of Americans killed annually by nosocomial infections.

MrMagic says

Really??? Like LAST year?

Do you see how you have contradicted your own argument? The fact that vaccines do not provide 100% protection disproves your earlier statement: even if parents get their children vaccinated, that does not necessarily protect them from marcus, who chooses not to get vaccinated. As I stated above, vaccination reduces significantly the risk of getting infected and spreading infection; it helps primarily by creating community immunity.

Are you saying you want taxpayers to pay marcus to infect, deliberately, children who are required to attend public school? Influenza kills children every year, and sends many to hospitals at huge expense. Exposure to unvaccinated staff is a documented risk factor. BTW, marcus also supported Obamneycare, so by spreading the virus, he can further enrich the hospital corporations that are the principal beneficiaries of that legislation. Is that the result you want?