4 ms·

The flu vaccine reduces severity and likelihood of catching it as well (which can serve to protect vulnerable populations). Your own personal chance of death is

The flu vaccine reduces severity and likelihood of catching it as well (which can serve to protect vulnerable populations). Your own personal chance of death is not all that matters. Getting it yearly may also reduce the risk of other related conditions e.g. https://www.uth.edu/news/story/uthealth-houston-study-flu-vaccination-linked-to-40-reduced-risk-of-alzheimers-disease https://www.uth.edu/news/story/uthealth-houston-study-flu-va... It's nearly risk free and it's definitely worth it even if all it did was decrease the severity of flu if you catch it (and it does more than that).

somenameforme 3y ago
The flu shot does not prevent one from getting the flu and spreading it to others. Like the past 3 years have shown, you're just not going to get herd immunity with these short term low efficacy shots, even when paired alongside monumental, wide scale, and completely unsustainable efforts. Also, the risk of something needs to be put in context of the risk of what you're protecting against. If something only has a severe negative side effect 1 in a million times, then it absolutely should be considered extremely low risk. But you're risk of whatever it's protecting against only has a severe outcome 1 in 2 million times? Well not only should it also then be considered extremely low risk, but getting the treatment would be quite illogical. These risks also needs to be multiplied repeatedly for low efficacy treatments which entail annual use.
- haldujai 3y ago
  Both of your comments have described concepts that are very important to understand when discussing medical interventions, especially at the population level. Your reasoning is correct, I just wanted to add the terminology we use: Absolute risk reduction (ARR), relative risk reduction (RRR), number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH). Reading about these is a good starting point for anyone wanting to understand more about the decision making process.
- brokensegue 3y ago
  > The flu shot does not prevent one from getting the flu and spreading it to others It does both of those things. Maybe read: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm > Also, the risk of something needs to be put in context of the risk of what you're protecting against True. And one thing we're protecting against is getting the flu. That has a probability much much higher than 1 in 2 million.
MrYellowP 3y ago
> The flu vaccine reduces severity and likelihood of catching it as well (which can serve to protect vulnerable populations). Your own personal chance of death is not all that matters. This is an insane perspective, eventually leading to totalitarianism. Thinking this to the end, everyone should get forced to be vaccinated for everything, because it might save someone who might die from it. "Protect the weak and innocent" is a great excuse for reducing the freedoms of people. Absolutely insane.
- isbwkisbakadqv 3y ago
  It’s a question of values. I’m happy to pay taxes because my vision for how the world should work includes people who are thriving (like me) helping those who aren’t. Same reason I’m happy to get vaccines even if they don’t help me much (though most, maybe all, are worth it even if I only care about myself).
  - isbwkisbakadqv 3y ago
    I guess I forgot to directly respond - point I was trying to make is that I don’t find this insane.
- brokensegue 3y ago
  I never said anything about forcing people to get vaccinated. I was simply arguing that getting vaccinated is wise and considerate. "Your own personal chance of death is not all that matters" is just a fact. There are outcomes other than your death that should influence your decisions.

somenameforme 3y ago

The flu shot does not prevent one from getting the flu and spreading it to others. Like the past 3 years have shown, you're just not going to get herd immunity with these short term low efficacy shots, even when paired alongside monumental, wide scale, and completely unsustainable efforts. Also, the risk of something needs to be put in context of the risk of what you're protecting against. If something only has a severe negative side effect 1 in a million times, then it absolutely should be considered extremely low risk. But you're risk of whatever it's protecting against only has a severe outcome 1 in 2 million times? Well not only should it also then be considered extremely low risk, but getting the treatment would be quite illogical. These risks also needs to be multiplied repeatedly for low efficacy treatments which entail annual use.

haldujai 3y ago
Both of your comments have described concepts that are very important to understand when discussing medical interventions, especially at the population level. Your reasoning is correct, I just wanted to add the terminology we use: Absolute risk reduction (ARR), relative risk reduction (RRR), number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH). Reading about these is a good starting point for anyone wanting to understand more about the decision making process.
brokensegue 3y ago
> The flu shot does not prevent one from getting the flu and spreading it to others It does both of those things. Maybe read: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm > Also, the risk of something needs to be put in context of the risk of what you're protecting against True. And one thing we're protecting against is getting the flu. That has a probability much much higher than 1 in 2 million.

MrYellowP 3y ago

> The flu vaccine reduces severity and likelihood of catching it as well (which can serve to protect vulnerable populations). Your own personal chance of death is not all that matters. This is an insane perspective, eventually leading to totalitarianism. Thinking this to the end, everyone should get forced to be vaccinated for everything, because it might save someone who might die from it. "Protect the weak and innocent" is a great excuse for reducing the freedoms of people. Absolutely insane.

isbwkisbakadqv 3y ago
It’s a question of values. I’m happy to pay taxes because my vision for how the world should work includes people who are thriving (like me) helping those who aren’t. Same reason I’m happy to get vaccines even if they don’t help me much (though most, maybe all, are worth it even if I only care about myself).
- isbwkisbakadqv 3y ago
  I guess I forgot to directly respond - point I was trying to make is that I don’t find this insane.
brokensegue 3y ago
I never said anything about forcing people to get vaccinated. I was simply arguing that getting vaccinated is wise and considerate. "Your own personal chance of death is not all that matters" is just a fact. There are outcomes other than your death that should influence your decisions.