4 ms·

I'm not trying to be cheeky here, but I've actually never heard of the flu shot being represented as a vaccine before. It's always called on signage and in the

by yucky 4y ago

I'm not trying to be cheeky here, but I've actually never heard of the flu shot being represented as a vaccine before. It's always called on signage and in the common vernacular "the flu shot", precisely because everybody knows it's a crapshoot and probably only worth getting if you're especially vulnerable. From the US if it matters, but I don't think I've ever heard the term "flu vaccine" before. Just - Flu Shot.

OJFord 4y ago
Huh, hadn't thought of that, same in my experience in the UK - 'jab' rather than 'shot', but same thing.
fabian2k 4y ago
That's a subjective association, and doesn't work e.g. in German where it's "Grippeschutzimpfung" (flu protection vaccination).
detaro 4y ago
But official resources clearly call it a vaccine (and not just in the US either, same with e.g. NHS). And in reverse, aren't any vaccinations called the "xxx shot"(US english)/"xxx jab"(UK english)? E.g. I'm fairly sure I've seen people from the US say they need to get their "shots" for traveling (e.g. yellow fever if you go to at-risk countries)
- yucky 4y ago
  That hasn't been my experience. Children get their vaccines for school and we refer to those vaccines as being part of their vaccination records.
  - dwaite 4y ago
    The differences can be explained by context and marketing. The place I went to had many signs saying that flu shots were available, while the person who administered it referred to it as a vaccine.
    - yucky 4y ago
      I don't think so since none of those vaccines we get as kids are only good for a season, and with limited effectiveness. I think that's the real reason, not marketing.
      - dwaite 4y ago
        Perhaps? Languages and common vernacular evolve in surprising ways. The use of 'shot' was originally meant to indicate that it is given via injection; however the word 'vaccine' may have become less common because rapid mutations result in new flu vaccine versions twice a year, and vaccination only gives a limited time resistance. It would make sense this would leads to a less formal vernacular. Since orally administered flu vaccines are in clinical trials, we might get to see vernacular evolve to accommodate them soon. All that said, "flu shot" is a common name for influenza vaccines. There is no requirement that a vaccine be highly effective or impart a long-term resistance. Rather, vaccines which are not safe and measurably effective are not desirable and thus tend to not be made available.
        yucky 4y ago
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  > aren't any vaccinations called the "xxx shot"(US english)/"xxx jab"(UK english) Entirely correct. Flu jab = flu shot = anti-flu vaccination. This latter-day line that "if it doesn't provide 100% sterilising immunity then is it a really vaccine, hmm?" is intentionally a wedge statement, the thin edge of the anti-vax divisiveness, watered down so as to not be instantly dismissed.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago
> probably only worth getting if you're especially vulnerable I also grew up in the US and came away with the exact opposite impression. Every year from when I was in grade school through university there was a massive push to get everyone to have the flu shot. I didn't hear the phrase "flu vaccine" but the reasoning was always exactly the same as for the covid vaccines: herd immunity, less chance of getting the flu, less chance of dying from the flu. Now as an adult with no health issues, I go get my flu shot every year. Why not? It's free, it takes barely any time out of my day, and I'm less likely to die.
- ifyoubuildit 4y ago
  > Why not? It's free [...] I often find myself wondering why people in rich countries feel like this is such a compelling argument. I know everyone's financial situations are different, but if the claimed benefits of a thing are taken at face value, why should a price tag of $0 or $100 factor into your decision to take it? Consider someone with a median software dev salary. Why would the minimal cost of the thing be considered for more than a split second? The effectiveness and safety profile seem to me like they should be all that really matters (probably distantly followed by the social/political/professional pressures). For Americans, it might be from an assumption that if it's medical, it's life-alteringly expensive, but thats not even the case for these things. But this idea of "why wouldn't you take it, its free!" just doesn't compute for me. There are a lot of free things I have no interest in. EDIT: Not to mention that it isn't even really free! You're still paying for it with your taxes/insurance premiums.
  - EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago
    I make an above median software dev salary, I definitely spend time considering $100 vs $0. Also, I now live in a country where I don't pay for most healthcare, so the default is free, which means when I encounter unexpected costs in healthcare I spend a little bit of time thinking about it, even if it's only a small amount of money. > Not to mention that it isn't even really free! You're still paying for it with your taxes/insurance premiums. That's a ridiculous way to look at it, I pay the same amount regardless of whether I get the flu shot or not. Therefore getting it is free.

by yucky 4y ago

OJFord 4y ago

Huh, hadn't thought of that, same in my experience in the UK - 'jab' rather than 'shot', but same thing.

fabian2k 4y ago

That's a subjective association, and doesn't work e.g. in German where it's "Grippeschutzimpfung" (flu protection vaccination).

detaro 4y ago

But official resources clearly call it a vaccine (and not just in the US either, same with e.g. NHS). And in reverse, aren't any vaccinations called the "xxx shot"(US english)/"xxx jab"(UK english)? E.g. I'm fairly sure I've seen people from the US say they need to get their "shots" for traveling (e.g. yellow fever if you go to at-risk countries)

yucky 4y ago
That hasn't been my experience. Children get their vaccines for school and we refer to those vaccines as being part of their vaccination records.
- dwaite 4y ago
  The differences can be explained by context and marketing. The place I went to had many signs saying that flu shots were available, while the person who administered it referred to it as a vaccine.
  - yucky 4y ago
    I don't think so since none of those vaccines we get as kids are only good for a season, and with limited effectiveness. I think that's the real reason, not marketing.
    - dwaite 4y ago
      Perhaps? Languages and common vernacular evolve in surprising ways. The use of 'shot' was originally meant to indicate that it is given via injection; however the word 'vaccine' may have become less common because rapid mutations result in new flu vaccine versions twice a year, and vaccination only gives a limited time resistance. It would make sense this would leads to a less formal vernacular. Since orally administered flu vaccines are in clinical trials, we might get to see vernacular evolve to accommodate them soon. All that said, "flu shot" is a common name for influenza vaccines. There is no requirement that a vaccine be highly effective or impart a long-term resistance. Rather, vaccines which are not safe and measurably effective are not desirable and thus tend to not be made available.
      - yucky 4y ago
SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> aren't any vaccinations called the "xxx shot"(US english)/"xxx jab"(UK english) Entirely correct. Flu jab = flu shot = anti-flu vaccination. This latter-day line that "if it doesn't provide 100% sterilising immunity then is it a really vaccine, hmm?" is intentionally a wedge statement, the thin edge of the anti-vax divisiveness, watered down so as to not be instantly dismissed.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago

> probably only worth getting if you're especially vulnerable I also grew up in the US and came away with the exact opposite impression. Every year from when I was in grade school through university there was a massive push to get everyone to have the flu shot. I didn't hear the phrase "flu vaccine" but the reasoning was always exactly the same as for the covid vaccines: herd immunity, less chance of getting the flu, less chance of dying from the flu. Now as an adult with no health issues, I go get my flu shot every year. Why not? It's free, it takes barely any time out of my day, and I'm less likely to die.

ifyoubuildit 4y ago
> Why not? It's free [...] I often find myself wondering why people in rich countries feel like this is such a compelling argument. I know everyone's financial situations are different, but if the claimed benefits of a thing are taken at face value, why should a price tag of $0 or $100 factor into your decision to take it? Consider someone with a median software dev salary. Why would the minimal cost of the thing be considered for more than a split second? The effectiveness and safety profile seem to me like they should be all that really matters (probably distantly followed by the social/political/professional pressures). For Americans, it might be from an assumption that if it's medical, it's life-alteringly expensive, but thats not even the case for these things. But this idea of "why wouldn't you take it, its free!" just doesn't compute for me. There are a lot of free things I have no interest in. EDIT: Not to mention that it isn't even really free! You're still paying for it with your taxes/insurance premiums.
- EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago
  I make an above median software dev salary, I definitely spend time considering $100 vs $0. Also, I now live in a country where I don't pay for most healthcare, so the default is free, which means when I encounter unexpected costs in healthcare I spend a little bit of time thinking about it, even if it's only a small amount of money. > Not to mention that it isn't even really free! You're still paying for it with your taxes/insurance premiums. That's a ridiculous way to look at it, I pay the same amount regardless of whether I get the flu shot or not. Therefore getting it is free.