Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Dirty Stinking Government HealthcareFollow

#27 Oct 22 2009 at 7:09 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
ThiefX wrote:


Im very aware of what it is, I am a paramedic and the H1N1 shot was offered to me weeks ago. I turned it down. Not because I think that Vaccines are some govn experiment but because the swine flu is just that the flu.

Every few years the media spreads fear and panic by reporting that some deadly whatever is gonna spread around the globe and kill us all and every time people like Cat who are perfectly healthy and young go stand in line to get a shot that gives them a case of the very flu they were scared the death of.



And there ladies and gen'l'men is a brief moment of clarity from a very unexpected direction.

Well done Sir!
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#28 Oct 22 2009 at 7:12 PM Rating: Excellent
paulsol wrote:
ThiefX wrote:


Im very aware of what it is, I am a paramedic and the H1N1 shot was offered to me weeks ago. I turned it down. Not because I think that Vaccines are some govn experiment but because the swine flu is just that the flu.

Every few years the media spreads fear and panic by reporting that some deadly whatever is gonna spread around the globe and kill us all and every time people like Cat who are perfectly healthy and young go stand in line to get a shot that gives them a case of the very flu they were scared the death of.



And there ladies and gen'l'men is a brief moment of clarity from a very unexpected direction.

Well done Sir!


Yeah, on;y not so much. It's true the panic over swine flu is ridiculous, but if you're a paramedic you should be vaccinated against all current flu strains.
#29 Oct 22 2009 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
And there ladies and gen'l'men is a brief moment of clarity from a very unexpected direction.


I have never gotten a flu shot in my life, and I have never caught the flu. I'm still not going to disparage people who want to take some sort of precaution, whether or not the disease of the year is being hyped beyond belief.

You act as if there's a 1:1 correlation between getting a shot and getting the disease itself... It reeks of more fear and more paranoia than people scared of the flu itself.
#30 Oct 22 2009 at 7:16 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
but if you're a paramedic you should be vaccinated against all current flu strains.


Rubbish. What has being a health worker got to do with compulsory innoculation? Health workers have every right to refuse, and are generally in a better position to understand why to refuse.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#31 Oct 22 2009 at 7:18 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Rubbish. What has being a health worker got to do with compulsory innoculation? Health workers have every right to refuse, and are generally in a better position to understand why to refuse.


Well... you could potentially contract something and pass it on to an already sick or injured person, who then dies due to your prideful negligence. Good work, murderer.
#32 Oct 22 2009 at 7:34 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
but if you're a paramedic you should be vaccinated against all current flu strains.


Rubbish. What has being a health worker got to do with compulsory innoculation? Health workers have every right to refuse, and are generally in a better position to understand why to refuse.


If you work in constant close proximity/contact with people that are ill it is to everyone's benefit for you to avoid illness.
#33 Oct 22 2009 at 7:54 PM Rating: Default
**
559 posts
Quote:
You do know that the reason the vaccine was a priority is that your immunodefense system does not target the H1N1 virus as a threat, right? It will just glide through a strong immune system unmolested.


People have been evolving for how many years to adapt to new biological threats?

Maybe the shots weaken your ability to adapt your immune system to this new disease thus making you weaker each consecutive flu season and more in need of said shots?

has that been tested yet? Talk about herd mentality...
#34 Oct 22 2009 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
Um, I'm gonna stick with the CDC on this one.
#35 Oct 22 2009 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
soulshaver wrote:
People have been evolving for how many years to adapt to new biological threats?

Maybe the shots weaken your ability to adapt your immune system to this new disease thus making you weaker each consecutive flu season and more in need of said shots?

has that been tested yet? Talk about herd mentality...


You're cute. Stick around.
#36 Oct 22 2009 at 8:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
soulshaver wrote:
Maybe the shots weaken your ability to adapt your immune system to this new disease thus making you weaker each consecutive flu season and more in need of said shots?

Maybe. But seeing as how our immune systems do their adaptations by receiving pathogens and defeating them, I don't see the logic in claiming that vaccines are weakening the immune response by introducing pathogens and having our systems defeat them. That's the sort of thing that'd need to be proven rather than disproven.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Oct 22 2009 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
soulshaver wrote:
Quote:
You do know that the reason the vaccine was a priority is that your immunodefense system does not target the H1N1 virus as a threat, right? It will just glide through a strong immune system unmolested.


People have been evolving for how many years to adapt to new biological threats?

Maybe the shots weaken your ability to adapt your immune system to this new disease thus making you weaker each consecutive flu season and more in need of said shots?

has that been tested yet? Talk about herd mentality...


You haven't taken many biology classes either, eh?
#38 Oct 22 2009 at 8:08 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
People have been evolving for how many years to adapt to new biological threats?


People don't evolve. Species..es evolve, on a level concerning the gradual and eventual change of entire species..es (seriously, what is the plural?) You aren't going to be doing any evolving whatsoever to adapt to the flue if you catch it; you'll either fight it off or die, but you certainly aren't evolving. As far as your personal well being is concerned, evolution is entirely irrelevant.

Quote:
has that been tested yet? Talk about herd mentality...


it's the moral majority working HARD for you...

Edited, Oct 22nd 2009 10:10pm by Pensive
#39 Oct 22 2009 at 8:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Isn't "species" plural the same way "deer" is?
#40 Oct 22 2009 at 8:23 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Bardalicious wrote:


If you work in constant close proximity/contact with people that are ill it is to everyone's benefit for you to avoid illness.


Agreed. But compulsory inoculation for health workers would have far less effect in keeping employees healthy than say, refusing to employ people who smoke, or who lead an unhealthy lifestyle. I don't see anyone suggesting that.

Do you?

No. Because if we fired all the heavy smoking fat fucks who work in the average healthcare establishment, you'd have an awful lot of empty parking spaces in the staff car park.

And if someone told me that my choices were inoculation, or dismissal, you would gain my parking space too.

By all means get your inoculation. It might stop you getting H1N1, (tho' thats far from proven) wich you almost definately wouldn't die from in the first place, but making it 'compulsory' is foolish and benefits no-one except perhaps the makers of the vaccine.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#41 Oct 22 2009 at 8:23 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Isn't "species" plural the same way "deer" is?


Species, Specieses
Deer, Deeres
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#42 Oct 22 2009 at 8:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Isn't "species" plural the same way "deer" is?


Species, Specieses
Deer, Deeres


Get back in your cage. I swear, we need a better lock on that thing.
#43 Oct 22 2009 at 8:25 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:

People don't evolve. Species..es evolve, on a level concerning the gradual and eventual change of entire species..es (seriously, what is the plural?) You aren't going to be doing any evolving whatsoever to adapt to the flue if you catch it; you'll either fight it off or die, but you certainly aren't evolving. As far as your personal well being is concerned, evolution is entirely irrelevant.



My immune system is continuously adapting to new threats. Evolve, adapt. All much the same.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#44 Oct 22 2009 at 8:29 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
paulsol wrote:
By all means get your inoculation. It might stop you getting H1N1, (tho' thats far from proven)


According to who, exactly?


(Everything I have read shows 85-90%)
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#45 Oct 22 2009 at 8:34 PM Rating: Good
****
5,159 posts
paulsol wrote:
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:

People don't evolve. Species..es evolve, on a level concerning the gradual and eventual change of entire species..es (seriously, what is the plural?) You aren't going to be doing any evolving whatsoever to adapt to the flue if you catch it; you'll either fight it off or die, but you certainly aren't evolving. As far as your personal well being is concerned, evolution is entirely irrelevant.



My immune system is continuously adapting to new threats. Evolve, adapt. All much the same.

Except for being completely opposite in scale, yep. That doesn't bar the point that the only way for you to adapt to H1N1 is to have the virus somehow introduced to your immune system, and that your options are basically to get a full-strength hit of the strain in the wild, or a weakened or dead version of it through a vaccine. Or, of course, to hope against the odds to never encounter it; but that's a rather irresponsible position for a health care worker who's in constant contact with unhealthy people to be taking.
#46 Oct 22 2009 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
paulsol wrote:
Agreed. But compulsory inoculation for health workers would have far less effect in keeping employees healthy than say, refusing to employ people who smoke, or who lead an unhealthy lifestyle. I don't see anyone suggesting that.

Do you?

No. Because being a fat smoker doesn't represent the same threat to the multitudes of people with compromised immune systems in the same manner than a health care worker infected with a virus does.

The idea isn't to be sure health care workers enjoy long and healthy lives, it's to help prevent them from becoming vectors for spreading diseases.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Oct 22 2009 at 8:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
paulsol wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:


If you work in constant close proximity/contact with people that are ill it is to everyone's benefit for you to avoid illness.


Agreed. But compulsory inoculation for health workers would have far less effect in keeping employees healthy than say, refusing to employ people who smoke, or who lead an unhealthy lifestyle. I don't see anyone suggesting that.

Do you?

No. Because if we fired all the heavy smoking fat fucks who work in the average healthcare establishment, you'd have an awful lot of empty parking spaces in the staff car park.

It's not just to protect the health care worker, it's to protect the hundreds of immunocompromised people they come into contact with every week.

#48 Oct 22 2009 at 8:42 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
No. Because if we fired all the heavy smoking fat ***** who work in the average healthcare establishment, you'd have an awful lot of empty parking spaces in the staff car park.


Smoking is not a communicable disease unless you're a totally inconsiderate **** who can't go outside. If you are sick and you have not experienced symptoms yet, but are contagious, then you are a walking plague rat.

Quote:
But compulsory inoculation for health workers would have far less effect in keeping employees healthy than say


Don't care. It's not about the health worker. Stay home and eat botulism pie washed down with a glass of ebola if you feel like it, as long as you don't leave the house. When you're going to work though, and do not inoculate yourself against a highly pervasive and communicable disease, or even try to do so, you are putting patients at risk and acting irresponsibly.
#49 Oct 22 2009 at 8:44 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Jophiel wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Agreed. But compulsory inoculation for health workers would have far less effect in keeping employees healthy than say, refusing to employ people who smoke, or who lead an unhealthy lifestyle. I don't see anyone suggesting that.

Do you?

No. Because being a fat smoker doesn't represent the same threat to the multitudes of people with compromised immune systems in the same manner than a health care worker infected with a virus does.

The idea isn't to be sure health care workers enjoy long and healthy lives, it's to help prevent them from becoming vectors for spreading diseases.


Like with JD's buddy Cabbage killed that nice old woman on Scrubs by transmitting a very small innocent disease to her.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#50REDACTED, Posted: Oct 22 2009 at 9:04 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Oh really? Thanks for explaining that, I thought it was far more complicated and less understood. But who needs uncertainty when you can just believe you know what you are talking about.
#51 Oct 22 2009 at 9:09 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
But seeing as how our immune systems do their adaptations by receiving pathogens and defeating them, I don't see the logic in claiming that vaccines are weakening the immune response by introducing pathogens and having our systems defeat them. That's the sort of thing that'd need to be proven rather than disproven.
Considering that they still haven't gotten around to proving that hypercleanliness contributes to asthma and all manner of allergies (disclaimer: I'm of the opinion it does), I don't see them bothering to try and prove or disprove this anytime soon.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 258 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (258)