5 ms·

Perhaps old people should take it but young people would be stupid to do so: flu might act as a protective system for the immune system We don't know very well

Perhaps old people should take it but young people would be stupid to do so: flu might act as a protective system for the immune system We don't know very well how the body works on the higher "interconnected" level of how "X affects Y down the road over time" so preventing it from getting midly ill from a simple flu once a year might end up causing severe unexpected issues down the road. [EDIT: I see it's getting downvoted a lot: do you really belive that you can just eliminate a completely harmless to young people disease and assume you've done so in complete isolation of all other factors? Nothing is ever done in isolation in the human body, everything is always interconnected and you cannot predict how this will affect the body many years down the line. Don't be suprised if young people will then also start having severe issues all of the sudden that were once reserved only for the crtiticaly ill and very old.]

cthalupa 6y ago
>I see it's getting downvoted a lot: do you really belive that you can just eliminate a completely harmless to young people disease and assume you've done so in complete isolation of all other factors? You're getting downvoted because you're fearmongering based on nothing more than "Everything is connected!" That's not an argument, that's handwaving things away in a panic.
- OneGuy123 6y ago
  That's not fearmongering: you belive that it's easy to determine that "not getting the flu ever won't cause issues". Such a thing cannot be determined easily and effects can start showing after many years of the body not getting the flu. You belive that it's easy to see how the body works: modern science can tell that only in isolation, but the body as a whole is not something we can predict the longterm effects for. Why do you think vaccines need 10-15 years of testing before getting approved (except the covid one, which tells you a lot about how much they know about the side effects....)
  - elcomet 6y ago
    > Why do you think vaccines need 10-15 years of testing before getting approved Because most diseases are much slower to propagate than covid. So you need to wait very long to have enough people that got it in your control group to have significant statistical results.
    - OneGuy123 6y ago
      You do realize 6 months is not "long term"?
      - elcomet 6y ago
        Yes, but the wait for 10 years is not there only to test for side effects. It is needed to test the effectiveness of the vaccine. For COVID, you don't need this long term period to test for effectiveness. Of course I agree about the risk for long-term side effects, but we're in a situation of risk-benefits calculation here. And I don't think waiting 10 years is the right move.
  - deegles 6y ago
    > the body as a whole is not something we can predict the longterm effects for I'm no doctor but I feel like modern medicine can make some pretty darn good predictions. Besides, your arguments are not sound. If your premise of "the body is too complex to predict" is true, then you can't immediately follow that with a prediction of a long term effect (e.g. eliminating a "harmless" disease will have ill effects.) I can just as easily make something up like, "the immune system can only respond to a finite amount of disease, therefore getting vaccinated leaves more capacity for future infections." (which is not true)
    - OneGuy123 6y ago
      No you cannot make that up because the body can naturaly fight it as it's naturaly designed for that: but when you artificaly induce something in the body there is no guarantee that you won't just break the natural protection. And no modern medicine cannot predict anything on a global level of the body: if it could then we could've simulate billion of virtual humans using supercomputers and go for real human trials only after that. But such simulations would be innacurate just like how weather prediction is innacurate for more than a few days in the future: the problem is that the body (just like the weather) is a complex system where the butterfly effects becaomes a real thing. So it's not a question of "models" or "compute power": even the slightest devition in the model will break all predictions results in a cascading manner over time.
- pkphilip 6y ago
  Well, everything is connected - especially when it comes to injecting things into the blood stream consisting of bits of pieces of viruses and RNA. Is that even up for debate? and how is that fear mongering when it is just the most obvious truth?
  - ben_w 6y ago
    That things are connected does not imply that an action designs specifically to train the immune system (which is what vaccines are) is something to fear may actual harm the immune system (which is the claim), especially given that it has been tested. While it is not impossible for things to go wrong, the rational belief is that it will — to a higher standard than most people would consider “certain” — be both safe and protective.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    > injecting things into the blood stream consisting of bits of pieces of viruses and RNA The alternative scenario here is having those same viruses and RNA inhaled in an active form with lungs helping to transfer them into the blood stream. What are you actually advocating for/against here?
chki 6y ago
Sure, the flu _might_ theoretically have a long-term positive influence. However it might just as well have a long-term negative influence. Viral infections are known to have negative long-term consequences sometimes.
ben_w 6y ago
Influenza is not completely harmless even to young people. While I would never rule out surprises, you overstated your case by saying young people would “be stupid” to take it.
- OneGuy123 6y ago
  If your focus was on "be stupid" you missed the point.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    Then I suggest next time you write something more like “might be counterproductive”. When I try to moderate someone’s confidence downward, I find it ineffective to jump to “that’s dumb you’re dumb” — indeed, even being perceived as saying that when it isn’t my intention means the other party does not engage with the point.
hvidgaard 6y ago
MMR vaccine is known to boost the immune system, who is to say the universal flu vaccine doesn't do the same?
- ejolto 6y ago
  All vaccines boost the immune system. It seems like a lot of people misunderstand how vaccines work (not saying you do). Vaccines don't fight of infections for you, they train the immune system to correctly identify pathogens so the immune system can fight them off more efficiently.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    Marketing for vaccines failed miserably. Instead of talking about nano-particles, which are basically small (nano!) bubbles of fat that are used by the body to exchange substances, they should have been sold as natural medicine that just strengthen your natural immune system. Vaccines, the yoga of medical drugs...
  - hvidgaard 6y ago
    Most vaccines only prevent the specific disease they are designed to prevent. However, there is a clear causation at play here. People which have received the MMR vaccine, is simply less ill from other diseases unrelated to the diseases vaccinated against with the MMR vaccine.
    - kian 6y ago
      Does this control for people actually getting measles? I.e., are the incidences of disease less after removing the people who got measles who didn't receive the MMR vaccine? Measles is known to strip the immune system of much of its memory, rendering people who have had it susceptible to all sorts of diseases they used to have protection against. I would not be surprised at all if this led to a large outcome differential for the vaccinated and unvaccinated, even if only a few of the unvaccinated caught measles.
- beagle3 6y ago
PierceJoy 6y ago
There's an assumption here that getting the flu is natural. What reason do you have to believe that? Many people, especially in lower density areas, go their entire lives without ever getting the flu. If you have some evidence that getting the flu can have protective effects, please present it.
- OneGuy123 6y ago
  So the alternative is to artificaly induce something in the body and assume that it won't break any existing protection in the body?
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    Yeah. If by assume, you mean conduct multi-phase clinical trials with peer reviewed studies by people whose job and expertise is in determining the safety of new medicines.
  - CorrectHorseBat 6y ago
    As we have been doing for over 200 years with very very few dangerous side effects
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    So you never take any vitamins, medicines, etc?
onetimemanytime 6y ago
With zero data. How about we drill a new hole in the head? Since everything is interconnected, it might do us good despite quite a few deaths from it.
- layoutIfNeeded 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trepanning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trepanning
DanBC 6y ago
> you can just eliminate a completely harmless to young people disease Flu isn't completely harmless to young people. Where did you get that idea from? Some strains of flu are more severe in young people.
lookACamel 6y ago
"Everything being connected" is neutral. By itself that tells us nothing about whether having had the flu will have positive or negative effects in the long run. Why then are you so quick to bias yourself towards the idea of flu have some sort of protective effect down the road? To see how "everything is connected" is, by itself, devoid of content, let's rewrite your comment: Old people should take it but young people shouldn't forget to do so as well: flu might leaving lasting damage to the immune system We don't know very well how the body works on the higher "interconnected" level of how "X affects Y down the road over time" so allowing yourself to accumulate damage from constantly getting the flu once a year might end up causing severe unexpected issues down the road.

cthalupa 6y ago

>I see it's getting downvoted a lot: do you really belive that you can just eliminate a completely harmless to young people disease and assume you've done so in complete isolation of all other factors? You're getting downvoted because you're fearmongering based on nothing more than "Everything is connected!" That's not an argument, that's handwaving things away in a panic.

OneGuy123 6y ago
That's not fearmongering: you belive that it's easy to determine that "not getting the flu ever won't cause issues". Such a thing cannot be determined easily and effects can start showing after many years of the body not getting the flu. You belive that it's easy to see how the body works: modern science can tell that only in isolation, but the body as a whole is not something we can predict the longterm effects for. Why do you think vaccines need 10-15 years of testing before getting approved (except the covid one, which tells you a lot about how much they know about the side effects....)
- elcomet 6y ago
  > Why do you think vaccines need 10-15 years of testing before getting approved Because most diseases are much slower to propagate than covid. So you need to wait very long to have enough people that got it in your control group to have significant statistical results.
  - OneGuy123 6y ago
    You do realize 6 months is not "long term"?
    - elcomet 6y ago
      Yes, but the wait for 10 years is not there only to test for side effects. It is needed to test the effectiveness of the vaccine. For COVID, you don't need this long term period to test for effectiveness. Of course I agree about the risk for long-term side effects, but we're in a situation of risk-benefits calculation here. And I don't think waiting 10 years is the right move.
- deegles 6y ago
  > the body as a whole is not something we can predict the longterm effects for I'm no doctor but I feel like modern medicine can make some pretty darn good predictions. Besides, your arguments are not sound. If your premise of "the body is too complex to predict" is true, then you can't immediately follow that with a prediction of a long term effect (e.g. eliminating a "harmless" disease will have ill effects.) I can just as easily make something up like, "the immune system can only respond to a finite amount of disease, therefore getting vaccinated leaves more capacity for future infections." (which is not true)
  - OneGuy123 6y ago
    No you cannot make that up because the body can naturaly fight it as it's naturaly designed for that: but when you artificaly induce something in the body there is no guarantee that you won't just break the natural protection. And no modern medicine cannot predict anything on a global level of the body: if it could then we could've simulate billion of virtual humans using supercomputers and go for real human trials only after that. But such simulations would be innacurate just like how weather prediction is innacurate for more than a few days in the future: the problem is that the body (just like the weather) is a complex system where the butterfly effects becaomes a real thing. So it's not a question of "models" or "compute power": even the slightest devition in the model will break all predictions results in a cascading manner over time.
pkphilip 6y ago
Well, everything is connected - especially when it comes to injecting things into the blood stream consisting of bits of pieces of viruses and RNA. Is that even up for debate? and how is that fear mongering when it is just the most obvious truth?
- ben_w 6y ago
  That things are connected does not imply that an action designs specifically to train the immune system (which is what vaccines are) is something to fear may actual harm the immune system (which is the claim), especially given that it has been tested. While it is not impossible for things to go wrong, the rational belief is that it will — to a higher standard than most people would consider “certain” — be both safe and protective.
- viraptor 6y ago
  > injecting things into the blood stream consisting of bits of pieces of viruses and RNA The alternative scenario here is having those same viruses and RNA inhaled in an active form with lungs helping to transfer them into the blood stream. What are you actually advocating for/against here?

chki 6y ago

Sure, the flu _might_ theoretically have a long-term positive influence. However it might just as well have a long-term negative influence. Viral infections are known to have negative long-term consequences sometimes.

ben_w 6y ago

Influenza is not completely harmless even to young people. While I would never rule out surprises, you overstated your case by saying young people would “be stupid” to take it.

OneGuy123 6y ago
If your focus was on "be stupid" you missed the point.
- ben_w 6y ago
  Then I suggest next time you write something more like “might be counterproductive”. When I try to moderate someone’s confidence downward, I find it ineffective to jump to “that’s dumb you’re dumb” — indeed, even being perceived as saying that when it isn’t my intention means the other party does not engage with the point.

hvidgaard 6y ago

MMR vaccine is known to boost the immune system, who is to say the universal flu vaccine doesn't do the same?

ejolto 6y ago
All vaccines boost the immune system. It seems like a lot of people misunderstand how vaccines work (not saying you do). Vaccines don't fight of infections for you, they train the immune system to correctly identify pathogens so the immune system can fight them off more efficiently.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Marketing for vaccines failed miserably. Instead of talking about nano-particles, which are basically small (nano!) bubbles of fat that are used by the body to exchange substances, they should have been sold as natural medicine that just strengthen your natural immune system. Vaccines, the yoga of medical drugs...
- hvidgaard 6y ago
  Most vaccines only prevent the specific disease they are designed to prevent. However, there is a clear causation at play here. People which have received the MMR vaccine, is simply less ill from other diseases unrelated to the diseases vaccinated against with the MMR vaccine.
  - kian 6y ago
    Does this control for people actually getting measles? I.e., are the incidences of disease less after removing the people who got measles who didn't receive the MMR vaccine? Measles is known to strip the immune system of much of its memory, rendering people who have had it susceptible to all sorts of diseases they used to have protection against. I would not be surprised at all if this led to a large outcome differential for the vaccinated and unvaccinated, even if only a few of the unvaccinated caught measles.
beagle3 6y ago

PierceJoy 6y ago

There's an assumption here that getting the flu is natural. What reason do you have to believe that? Many people, especially in lower density areas, go their entire lives without ever getting the flu. If you have some evidence that getting the flu can have protective effects, please present it.

OneGuy123 6y ago
So the alternative is to artificaly induce something in the body and assume that it won't break any existing protection in the body?
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  Yeah. If by assume, you mean conduct multi-phase clinical trials with peer reviewed studies by people whose job and expertise is in determining the safety of new medicines.
- CorrectHorseBat 6y ago
  As we have been doing for over 200 years with very very few dangerous side effects
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  So you never take any vitamins, medicines, etc?

onetimemanytime 6y ago

With zero data. How about we drill a new hole in the head? Since everything is interconnected, it might do us good despite quite a few deaths from it.

layoutIfNeeded 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trepanning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trepanning

DanBC 6y ago

> you can just eliminate a completely harmless to young people disease Flu isn't completely harmless to young people. Where did you get that idea from? Some strains of flu are more severe in young people.

lookACamel 6y ago

"Everything being connected" is neutral. By itself that tells us nothing about whether having had the flu will have positive or negative effects in the long run. Why then are you so quick to bias yourself towards the idea of flu have some sort of protective effect down the road? To see how "everything is connected" is, by itself, devoid of content, let's rewrite your comment: Old people should take it but young people shouldn't forget to do so as well: flu might leaving lasting damage to the immune system We don't know very well how the body works on the higher "interconnected" level of how "X affects Y down the road over time" so allowing yourself to accumulate damage from constantly getting the flu once a year might end up causing severe unexpected issues down the road.