3 ms·

Not if you regularly get one from your doc when you had another laceration. Although I am not sure if they still do that when they are unsure about your vaccina

Not if you regularly get one from your doc when you had another laceration. Although I am not sure if they still do that when they are unsure about your vaccination status. It is recommended to get a booster every 10 years. Bacteria can be everywhere in the earth and if you do garden work I would heavily recommend that. A tiny cut you don't even notice is enough. I know someone who survived Tetanus. Barely and with lasting problems. No, this is not an endorsement to get a booster shot for Covid and it isn't comparable.

peteradio 5y ago
I wish it was routine to do a blood test to determine the individuals characteristics before recommending an inoculation. In this day and age of big data there doesn't seem to be any sort of excuse except "its just cheaper and less liability arises by recommending the vaccine". I'm more concerned about my individual result not some actuarial assessment coming from a single dimension like time since last they paid for our shot. This is just a rant about how vaccines in general are treated. Dogs are generally recommended to get rabies vaccines every 2 years even though there has never been any indication that the vaccine is needed again. Its only out of an abundance of caution in that single dimension without obvious long term outcome observation.
- ghaff 5y ago
  I assume any test result would also result in some sort of "actuarial assessment" just like most medical treatments are. ADDED: You're also now talking about getting lab work done, waiting for test results, then having to rush to the doctor if they determine you should get a shot. Sounds like a big hassle relative to just getting a booster for an utterly routine vaccination.
- brianwawok 5y ago
  My vet also requested we did heart worm medicine in the middle of Indiana winter. You know, when it’s 30F out and 0 mosquitos. I think there is def some stretching of dangers in order to sell more foobobs. (Same vet I asked for them to validate my RX for chewy so I could buy heartworm medicine, and they declined stating that they can’t validate the authenticity of online pharmacies so they wouldn’t do it. Pure cash grab)
  - bluedevil2k 5y ago
    Heart worm eggs can lay dormant in the bloodstream/muscles for up to 2 years, so the monthly pills ensure that no matter when they hatch they can’t develop into the worm. Yes, your vet is only looking out for their own profit here. Find a new one.
    - brianwawok 5y ago
      Right, but if you take monthly pills all summer - there is nothing in your bloodstream to need to worry about in the winter. And yes, we dumped that vet. Been through like 4 vets in as many years, it's wild.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  IMHO getting blood drawn is more painful than any vaccination I've ever received.
  - bbarnett 5y ago
    Yes, but, I think this is where we need to go. We can super-early detect some cancers now, via blood tests. vitamin deficiencies. A plethora of conditions and diseases, early on, too. Why not test all these things at once, and improve health?
  - peteradio 5y ago
    I had blood drawn for an antibody test literally 4 hours ago. I was utterly amazed that I didn't even feel the needle go in. I probably embarrassed myself by how loudly I complimented the nurse. Your mileage will vary.
- Enginerrrd 5y ago
  I'm not trying to totally refute your point, but it's worth noting that the desire for more testing is a common and somewhat naive perception amongst the public. Doctors that practice medicine however are aware that it has been shown that in many different contexts, even despite the benefits of early detection of a number of different issues, that the risks of unnecessary tests and screening often outweigh the benefits.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    Wouldn't that depend on whether the test was harmful? Why would a blood test cause me harm? I think its a part of routine physical.
    - Enginerrrd 5y ago
      >Wouldn't that depend on whether the test was harmful? This is a huge topic, for which this forum is too small a place to properly expound on it, but the answer to your question here is a resounding NO! The risk of the test procedure itself is typically not actually the main concern. The real risk has to do with inducing additional unnecessary testing, treatments, and side effects, costs, and psychological distress. In addition, you can cause profound nocebo effects, perceptions, and negative behavior changes in the "harmless" test-intervention group. You'd likely be surprised how negative an outcome this can actually be on average. The decision to add a screening test to routine procedures is NOT a light one.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  The problem with rabies, is how it turns the animal wildly violent. And how that change is designed to spread the virus.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > its just cheaper and less liability arises by recommending the vaccine I wouldn't call these excuses, I'd call them very good reasons. I'd much rather have a quick cheap jab than bloodwork and weeks of back and forth. If I didn't need it, it was harmless. If I did, it may have been lifesaving.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    I think its great that you have that option.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  IMO, it's a cost/benefit analysis. What's the damage caused by giving a booster that was unnecessary? Compare that to the cost of regular testing to find if a vaccination is necessary when we already have an idea of what an average is for the duration of immunity/resistance given by a vaccine. It'd probably cost me $50 to get my blood drawn and sent to a lab to determine if I needed a tetanus booster. Meanwhile, just giving me the damn booster is probably like $20. Just give me the damn booster. If you've had reactions to vaccines in the past, then sure, by all means, do the blood work to determine the necessity of a booster first, but for the general population, it's probably better to just boost.

peteradio 5y ago

I wish it was routine to do a blood test to determine the individuals characteristics before recommending an inoculation. In this day and age of big data there doesn't seem to be any sort of excuse except "its just cheaper and less liability arises by recommending the vaccine". I'm more concerned about my individual result not some actuarial assessment coming from a single dimension like time since last they paid for our shot. This is just a rant about how vaccines in general are treated. Dogs are generally recommended to get rabies vaccines every 2 years even though there has never been any indication that the vaccine is needed again. Its only out of an abundance of caution in that single dimension without obvious long term outcome observation.

ghaff 5y ago
I assume any test result would also result in some sort of "actuarial assessment" just like most medical treatments are. ADDED: You're also now talking about getting lab work done, waiting for test results, then having to rush to the doctor if they determine you should get a shot. Sounds like a big hassle relative to just getting a booster for an utterly routine vaccination.
brianwawok 5y ago
My vet also requested we did heart worm medicine in the middle of Indiana winter. You know, when it’s 30F out and 0 mosquitos. I think there is def some stretching of dangers in order to sell more foobobs. (Same vet I asked for them to validate my RX for chewy so I could buy heartworm medicine, and they declined stating that they can’t validate the authenticity of online pharmacies so they wouldn’t do it. Pure cash grab)
- bluedevil2k 5y ago
  Heart worm eggs can lay dormant in the bloodstream/muscles for up to 2 years, so the monthly pills ensure that no matter when they hatch they can’t develop into the worm. Yes, your vet is only looking out for their own profit here. Find a new one.
  - brianwawok 5y ago
    Right, but if you take monthly pills all summer - there is nothing in your bloodstream to need to worry about in the winter. And yes, we dumped that vet. Been through like 4 vets in as many years, it's wild.
jimbob45 5y ago
IMHO getting blood drawn is more painful than any vaccination I've ever received.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  Yes, but, I think this is where we need to go. We can super-early detect some cancers now, via blood tests. vitamin deficiencies. A plethora of conditions and diseases, early on, too. Why not test all these things at once, and improve health?
- peteradio 5y ago
  I had blood drawn for an antibody test literally 4 hours ago. I was utterly amazed that I didn't even feel the needle go in. I probably embarrassed myself by how loudly I complimented the nurse. Your mileage will vary.
Enginerrrd 5y ago
I'm not trying to totally refute your point, but it's worth noting that the desire for more testing is a common and somewhat naive perception amongst the public. Doctors that practice medicine however are aware that it has been shown that in many different contexts, even despite the benefits of early detection of a number of different issues, that the risks of unnecessary tests and screening often outweigh the benefits.
- peteradio 5y ago
  Wouldn't that depend on whether the test was harmful? Why would a blood test cause me harm? I think its a part of routine physical.
  - Enginerrrd 5y ago
    >Wouldn't that depend on whether the test was harmful? This is a huge topic, for which this forum is too small a place to properly expound on it, but the answer to your question here is a resounding NO! The risk of the test procedure itself is typically not actually the main concern. The real risk has to do with inducing additional unnecessary testing, treatments, and side effects, costs, and psychological distress. In addition, you can cause profound nocebo effects, perceptions, and negative behavior changes in the "harmless" test-intervention group. You'd likely be surprised how negative an outcome this can actually be on average. The decision to add a screening test to routine procedures is NOT a light one.
bbarnett 5y ago
The problem with rabies, is how it turns the animal wildly violent. And how that change is designed to spread the virus.
pessimizer 5y ago
> its just cheaper and less liability arises by recommending the vaccine I wouldn't call these excuses, I'd call them very good reasons. I'd much rather have a quick cheap jab than bloodwork and weeks of back and forth. If I didn't need it, it was harmless. If I did, it may have been lifesaving.
- peteradio 5y ago
  I think its great that you have that option.
Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
IMO, it's a cost/benefit analysis. What's the damage caused by giving a booster that was unnecessary? Compare that to the cost of regular testing to find if a vaccination is necessary when we already have an idea of what an average is for the duration of immunity/resistance given by a vaccine. It'd probably cost me $50 to get my blood drawn and sent to a lab to determine if I needed a tetanus booster. Meanwhile, just giving me the damn booster is probably like $20. Just give me the damn booster. If you've had reactions to vaccines in the past, then sure, by all means, do the blood work to determine the necessity of a booster first, but for the general population, it's probably better to just boost.