Originally Posted by mamakay Epidemiologists shouldn't be the ones determining what viruses are about to emerge as serious pathogens. It should be cell biologists and virologists figuring that out. |
"They" being "epidemiologists"? Like the ones at the Cochrane Collaboration? |
Going back to the media, it's the CDC that sends out packages to the media. Do you disagree that that is what they do? |
Originally Posted by LongIsland I mean, why else would the CDC universally recommend and push mandates for these particular vaccines if they weren't gravely threatening America's children, right? |
And just to clarify for the reader, there is no imminent threat of a bird flu pandemic. |
Flu vaccines are accepted as being at least reasonably effective by the overwhelming majority of the professionals in the relevant fields |
You may argue that they are wrong to believe what they believe, but that's not the same as saying that they're lying about what they believe. |
Originally Posted by dymanic No. I believe that the folks at the CDC are VERY concerned about the threat, and highly motivated to convey the risk to as many people as possible. |
Originally Posted by mamakay I'm not so sure about that. I personally know several "scientists" who don't "believe" that flu vaccines are very effective. |
And "health care workers" often don't get flushots, citing "lack of effectiveness" as a primary reason. |
I never said lying. |
Originally Posted by LongIsland I wonder why the folks at the CDC are not highly motivated to convey the risks of Congenital Cytomegalovirus (CMV) to as many people as possible? |
The same approach has been used to make a case against anthropogenic global warming. I've even seen it used in an attempt to discredit evolutionary theory, arguably the most fundamental concept in modern biology: "see these 'scientists' who don't 'believe' in evolution". The opinons of several scientists don't carry the same weight as do the opinions of thousands of scientists. |
No, but LI did (implied it, anyway) by saying: "Part of the pandemic flu hype is designed to scare people into vaccinating for seasonal influenza." |
Originally Posted by mamakay But that's actually true. It's # 7 of the "recipe" for creating demand for influenza vaccines. |
The healthcare workers I know who opt out of the flu shot are doing it for the same reasons as everyone else: we see firsthand that it makes you sick to receive it, it doesn't protect you as promised, and just like all other sanctioned vaccinations, side effects and longterm outcomes are poorly characterized or not known. |
Originally Posted by mamakay But that's actually true. It's # 7 of the "recipe" for creating demand for influenza vaccines. |
Originally Posted by LongIsland #7 References to, and discussions, of pandemic influenza-along with continued reference to the importance of vaccination. |
Originally Posted by mamakay Yeah...it comes right after the discussion on how to scare the sh*t out of people with videos of sick kids. Your tax dollars at work! Woo hoo! |
Fostering demand, particularly among people who don't routinely receive an annual influenza vaccination, requires creating concern, anxiety, and worry (e.g., Dr. Poland's pronouncement). • It's a lot harder to create a motivating level of concern and anxiety when a) influenza isn't yet present and b) disease severity and impact are in line with expectations. |
Health literacy is a growing problem |
Originally Posted by LongIsland one of the justifcations they used for expanding seasonal influenza vaccine recommendations to cover more pediatric age groups was to "prepare" for the pandemic. |
Originally Posted by blessed I think, like everyone else, we'd be more inclined to tell you about our healthcare colleagues who got the flu shot and then walked around moaning about how crappy they felt (or else just staying home) for the next five days. |
Originally Posted by mamakay Even "risk communication" isn't technically lying, although it's extremely deceptive in function. |
It's a lot harder to create a motivating level of concern and anxiety when a) influenza isn't yet present and b) disease severity and impact are in line with expectations. |
Plain language summary There is no high quality evidence that vaccinating healthcare workers reduces the incidence of influenza or its complications in the elderly in institutions There is evidence that vaccinating the elderly, particularly if the vaccine is well-matched to the circulating strains, has a modest impact on the complications from influenza. There is also high quality evidence that vaccinating healthy adults under 60 (which includes healthcare workers) reduces cases of influenza, especially if the vaccine is well matched to the circulating strains. Both the elderly in institutions and the healthcare workers who care for them could be vaccinated for their own protection, but an incremental benefit of vaccinating healthcare workers for the benefit of the elderly cannot be proven without better studies. |