Slashdot Mirror


100 Years Ago, Influenza Killed 50 Million People. Could It Happen Again? (usatoday.com)

Last year 80,000 Americans died of the flu -- and 900,000 more were hospitalized, according to estimates by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. NBC News reports: The numbers were shocking. Until now, CDC has said flu kills anywhere between 12,000 and 56,000 people a year, depending on how bad the flu season is, and that it puts between 250,000 and 700,000 into the hospital with serious illness. The numbers for the 2017-2018 flu season go far beyond that... Usually, flu hits first in one region and then another, but this past season saw widespread flu activity all at once, for weeks on end.
Coincidentally, it's the 100-year anniversary of the great flu pandemic of 1918, according to an article shared by schwit1: Up to 500 million people -- about one-third of the world's population -- became infected with the influenza virus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. As many as 50 million died, or one out of every 30 human beings on the planet, killing more American troops than those that died on World War I battlefields. The intensity and speed with which it struck were almost unimaginable, the worst global pandemic in modern history.
The article asks the ultimate question: Could it happen again? Top health and science groups, such as the World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, predict influenza pandemics are nearly certain to recur. "Influenza viruses, with the vast silent reservoir in aquatic birds, are impossible to eradicate," the World Health Organization warned. "With the growth of global travel, a pandemic can spread rapidly globally with little time to prepare a public health response." A pandemic could also arise if a strain mutates with or develops directly from animal flu viruses, the CDC said...

In a near worst-case scenario, a new, lethal and highly infectious flu virus would break out in a crowded, unprepared megacity that lacks public health infrastructure, according to Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Heath. Such a fast-moving virus could burst from a city and catch a ride with international travelers before public health officials realize what is happening.

The article points out that today there's now safeguards to detect and counteract influenza outbreaks that didn't exist in 1918 (including outbreak-detecting systems, as well as better antiviral drugs and the ability to develop vaccines more rapidly). But it also reminds us that the 1918 flu pandemic killed more people in two years than the plague did in an entire century.

The CDC recommends that every year, anyone six months of age or older should get a flu vaccine. But I'd be curious to hear from Slashdot's readers. Have you gotten your 2018 flu shot?

270 comments

  1. Here we go again by Computer_kid · · Score: 2

    Here comes all of the stories on how we are all gonna die from the flu.

    1. Re: Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, Couldn't have been all that bad, world population actually increased that year
      http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/xls/alert10_5.xls

    2. Re: Here we go again by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      It could be another disease, and it can happen again. The question is when.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re: Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That data is jank, everything 1951 after is between.038-.087 per year, everything 1950 and before is .020 EVERY SINGLE YEAR. So it's definitely extrapolated backwards before 1950 (poorly at that, since the rate is 1/2 the minimum from 1950-1999) and thus wouldn't account for the Spanish flu.

    4. Re: Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Couldn't have been all that bad, world population actually increased that year
      http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/xls/alert10_5.xls

      It's very difficult to actually prove this (without researching more than I feel like), but it looks like everything before 1950 is being calculated, and you are looking at projections over the course of many, many years.

      Taking an extrapolation and using it like actual real data is never a good idea.

    5. Re:Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No flu shot for me again !

    6. Re: Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I propose we introduce a yearly festival of murder where there are no repercussions! This would reduce the population and reduce the spread of deadly nation killers called influenza.

      Honestly, by not purging you really are condemning others to die by deadly virus.

    7. Re: Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A yearly quarantine would make more sense. Every year we choose a country (or region for larger countries) and close of its borders for 2 years. Noone in or out for those 2 years. That way if the rest of the world dies, we have a backup population (assuming either they can find a vaccine/antidote or the disease runs its course). With two countries in quarantine at any given time this should help prevent total annihilation of the human race. Only problem with this plan (other than what it would do to their local enonomy) is that if a worldwide epidemic did manfest, desperate people would try to get into the quarantine area.

    8. Re: Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was the plan all along with Cuba, but they keep breaking quarantine.

    9. Re: Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Antarctica melts, it will send icebergs full of thousand year old human killing germs at our beaches and kill millions.

    10. Re: Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until some dude in Africa fucks a monkey, and gets on a plane to California and infects us all.

  2. Yeah, sure it can by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    if we don't have a strong, coordinated response to a large scale outbreak yeah, it'll happen again. We haven't magically evolved somehow. We're still vulnerable to the same crap we always were.

    This is kind of a sticking point for me. I know lots of folks who, because something bad hasn't happened recently or to them or their immediate family, they think it's a non issue. Like those folks who were vehemently opposed to background checks for guns until they were shot at or folks in favor of single payer healthcare because they lost their jobs after a stroke. People's inability or unwillingness to extrapolate never ceases to amaze and infuriate me...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Yeah, sure it can by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For something like the flu, I don't think there's much that can be done. A huge chunk of the population gets it every single year and you can't really vaccinate against it effectively, so if it's a particularly deadly strain it's going to kill a lot of people. It doesn't matter how good of a healthcare system you have, or what kind of coordinated response you think you have in place, because it will get overwhelmed.

      About the only thing that can be done is to devise some way of treating viral infections or shutting them down, Basically something like antibiotics that can take out the virus or destroy enough of it to prevent people from getting ill to the point that it becomes fatal.

    2. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can start your "coordinated response" with _mandating_ employers allow sick employees to either work from home where possible, or take time off. I realize a large portion of Slashdot may not have to endure that but there are a hell of a lot of people who DO. A single sick employee can take out an entire office. That includes basic HVAC maintenance (seriously change your damn filters).

    3. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Informative

      Supportive health care has gotten MASSIVELY better since 1918, astronomically so. A similarly virulent strain would be bad, but nothing like as bad as it was, because a lot of people back then died due to lack of even basic supportive care.

            Of course, no one said it had to be the same level of virulence, it could be much worse, so ignoring the possibility doesn't make sense.

           

    4. Re:Yeah, sure it can by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have read many times that the flu shots will result in reduced symptoms, even if it doesn't prevent it entirely.

      Flu shots will reduce the number of people who die from the flu.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re: Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We haven't magically evolved somehow.

      Speak for yourself. I became a wizard and now have an 18 inch pianist in my pocket.

      Sadly, he only knows Chopin.

    6. Re:Yeah, sure it can by glitch! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For something like the flu, I don't think there's much that can be done. A huge chunk of the population gets it every single year and you can't really vaccinate against it effectively, so if it's a particularly deadly strain it's going to kill a lot of people.

      I disagree with the first and agree with your second. After my first decade of life, I started getting serious lung infections and they came every two to four years. Usually it was some form of pneumonia and as a secondary infection from a simple cold or flu. It became a recurring fact of life. I would get sick several times a year, and sometimes it would bloom out into a lung infection. I used the stupid simple antibiotics (eg, amoxicillin) and even the "advanced" ones (azithromycin) but not much changed.

      Leaving out detail here, I gave up sugar. And then I went low carb. And I do not get the flu or cold ever. EVER! I do take aspirin and/or small doses of prednisone for back pain, but that is all I take. And I never get sick any more. This is just one data point; use it any way you wish.

      --
      A dingo ate my sig...
    7. Re:Yeah, sure it can by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 4, Informative

      Supportive health care has gotten MASSIVELY better since 1918, astronomically so. A similarly virulent strain would be bad, but nothing like as bad as it was, because a lot of people back then died due to lack of even basic supportive care.

      Of course, no one said it had to be the same level of virulence, it could be much worse, so ignoring the possibility doesn't make sense.

      Yes, and not to mention the fact that, back 1918, there was extreme wealth inequality and the majority of people were poor and malnourished. It wasn't until after WWII that governments started to take public health and nutrition seriously because they realised that far too many military-age men we too unfit to fight for them in wars.

      Public nutrition and health have got much better since 1918 but it is starting to look like it's starting to slip back with obesity, heart disease, child poverty, etc., making a lot of people very unhealthy and vulnerable to disease. Oh, there's a lot more elderly and infirm people around these days who are particularly vulnerable to the flu.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    8. Re:Yeah, sure it can by SNRatio · · Score: 1

      Supportive care is great - so long as it's available. Keeping excess capacity on hand to treat a significant percentage of the population in a short period of time would be quite expensive and require someone to pay for national stockpiles of items with short shelf lives - so we don't do it.

    9. Re: Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a non-issue for humanity. We are using a resource year in little over 8 months. If 3 billion people kick the bucket from flu, we may have a chance of at least delaying the inevitable destruction of the planet

    10. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We haven't magically evolved somehow. We're still vulnerable to the same crap we always were...

      Uh, you'd have to be some kind of fucking moron to really believe that.

      No, we haven't evolved much, but science sure as hell has. 100 years ago Polio was killing half a million people a year, another death toll that science has managed to damn near eradicate. No, we don't cure many things today (too much money to be made in treatments), but we're sure as hell better off than we were 100 years ago, which is the comparative in TFS.

    11. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it won't. It was administering the then new wonder drug / fever reducer, Aspirin, that killed everyone.

      https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1082-3/aspirin-oral/aspirin-oral/details/list-interaction-details/dmid-1297/dmtitle-salicylates-influenza-virus-vaccine-live/intrtype-drug

      Also, Web MD's assertion that Reye's only occurs in children is incorrect:

      http://www.reyessyndrome.org/facts.html

    12. Re:Yeah, sure it can by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if we don't have a strong, coordinated response to a large scale outbreak yeah, it'll happen again. We haven't magically evolved somehow. We're still vulnerable to the same crap we always were.

      This is kind of a sticking point for me. I know lots of folks who, because something bad hasn't happened recently or to them or their immediate family, they think it's a non issue. Like those folks who were vehemently opposed to background checks for guns until they were shot at or folks in favor of single payer healthcare because they lost their jobs after a stroke. People's inability or unwillingness to extrapolate never ceases to amaze and infuriate me...

      Though I think we're much better able to have a strong, coordinated response now than 100 years ago.

      1) Our ability to treat sick people is a lot better.
      2) Wide scale distribution of surgical masks is way more feasible now than 100 years ago.
      3) Lots of people can work remotely if need be.
      4) Hygiene is way better.
      5) Schools could even be closed if need be, with remote learning options used as much as possible.

      Sure these are progressively more drastic actions, but if we're hitting even a 1% fatality rate I suspect most go into effect.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    13. Re: Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flu is all fun and games until you catch it, then you experience the worst 2 or 3 days of your life, with a recovery back to normal taking 1-3 weeks. It sucks.

      So if regular, run of the mill flu can cause such misery, high fevers and respiratory problems, I canâ(TM)t imagine what an even more virulent and deadly strain would do.

      The world is too connected these days. Amazon even delivers daily packages to tiny villages in the Himalayas. Given this, all of the safeguards in the world wonâ(TM)t slow something bad down. The safeguards wonâ(TM)t work quickly enough.

    14. Re:Yeah, sure it can by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      We haven't magically evolved somehow

      Yes we have. We are weaker. Bad diet, less physical activities, ...
      Human bodies are becoming more dependent upon modern medicine, until medicine can’t cope...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    15. Re: Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans, the people that think "yankee doodle dandy" is patriotic, monopoly is fun, and bootstrapping is something other than a paradox.

    16. Re:Yeah, sure it can by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It has gotten much better, but at the same time, resources are limited. During last year's flu season, the largest local hospital here had to bring in a mobile ER unit meant for disaster relief to handle overflow. It's not hard to imagine resources being completely overwhelmed if we get much worse one year.

    17. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      When you gave up sugar...did you also simultaneously (and perhaps coincidentally) become less social? Go out to parties less frequently? Less sexually active, and with a much smaller (like, one or zero) group of people?

      Because your story sounds a whole lot like mine. I used to get sick twice or so a year, every single year, sometimes getting lung infections requiring antibiotics. I tried many special diets and supplements, and nothing worked.

      But I also became antisocial in my old age. I don't date. I don't go out to parties. I don't make out with people. I go to work, of course, but I don't touch people and I keep my hands clean and so on.

      Now I never ever ever get sick. It just doesn't happen. Well, I did get food poisoning a few years ago when I ate at a restaurant.

      Diseases are spread via social interaction. Get less of it, and your exposure goes down. Online communities are great for preventing loneliness.

    18. Re:Yeah, sure it can by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Do you understand how viral infections aren't mitigated by antibiotics? And how they have nothing to do with diet? Of course you don't.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    19. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could easily be that "giving up sugar" and "low carb", meant a reduced inflammatory reaction to those same things. Some people have auto-immune issues with certain foods.

      If that immune response aggravated the lungs in any way, it could reduce the lung's ability to protect itself from viral or bacteria infection. So it could be a very real thing for this individual, but our medicine is literally so primitive that we aren't able to monitor such things effectively.

      For example, imagine if your blood, your cells were analyzed daily. In fact, every second. You'd know immediately if some food caused a very minor adverse reaction. You'd know if something was toxic. You'd know if you ingested things you shouldn't have.

    20. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone doesn't understand the difference between evolution and behavior.

    21. Re:Yeah, sure it can by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Our immune systems and overall health is so bad that a great many of us can't live without advanced medicine.

      No, I did not get my flu shot in 2018. Or 2017. Because vaccines work and are reasonably safe. That's not a good thing, because we become reliant on vaccinations.

      For evolution to work, we need higher death rates among children and young people. If everybody is selected for, there is no selection and no evolution.
      Influenza and other diseases are culling factors that can help keep the herd healthy, by picking off the less fit before they have a chance to reproduce. Exposure to diseases that most survive and a few don't seems like a better long term strategy for humanity than vaccinations against them. Inoculation allows weak immune systems to propagate through the gene pool, and makes future humans more likely to perish when the next superbug comes along, as it one day will.

    22. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And to further add to this?

      In 1918 sulfa drugs were the cat's meow, and antibiotics were just barely discovered/invented, and penicillin did not exist. And while antibiotics won't help with a virus, they DO help with all sorts of potential secondary infections that might occur when one becomes extremely weakened.

      On top of that? Very little was known about the inner workings of the human body. Scientists, journalists would prattle on about how a person's heart might "explode" if they broke the 4 minute mile. Religion, including Christianity which thought of the "body as a temple", often had people which believed opening a person's body was sacrilege.

      All practicing doctors and nurses were born in the mid to late 1800s, having gone through school to become a doctor, for example, in the 1880s or 90s. Think of what training one might receive then.

      Even the most disadvantaged citizen of the US today, knows SCORES more about medicine and health care than doctors being trained in the 1880s did. And in an emergency, they have access to medicines, even over the shelf, than would have been a god-send.

      Of course, a new epidemic might be more devastating than the 1918 version, due to how it works too. So, who knows. :P

      But it's important to try to understand the world of 1918... compared to 2018.

      I mean, most people had horses and buggies! Most people live in rural areas, not urban!

      In the winter time? Many smaller villages were literally cut off entirely, because it was impossible to clear the roads effectively... and the snow was too deep for horse + sleigh. Many people didn't even have radios, because batteries were expensive, radios were VERY expensive, and radios didn't work on A/C. It wasn't until the 20s, that you could just plug a radio into the wall and turn it on.

      http://www.radio-antiks.com/IndexRadio-Antiks_Rogers_R220.htm

      But these days, you can sit down in your pajamas and google for help hints on the flu.

      For a further perspective?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Reinhold_August_Wunderlich

      It wasn't until the late 1800s, that doctors started to really have a good idea of an ideal body temp. Or of the progress of temperature versus disease -- and therefore, using something as accurate as a thermometer to measure body temp! And you can bet that this wasn't taught the day after the book was published.

      Meaning? Doctors treating the flu in 1918, were likely being taught the "new idea" that taking the body temperature was important to determining the state of a patient.

      A last thing to ponder... that was 100 years ago. If history is any indication, 100 years from now people will scoff at how inept our medicine was, and make comments like I've made above....

    23. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent down. There are many statements listed that are factually incorrect. Namely, antibiotics are anti BACTERIA not anti viral. Two completely separate organisms.

    24. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The person you were replying to explained more than once that they had recurring secondary infections. Do YOU know what a secondary infection is? When the flu virus causes mucosa to become dry, it is more susceptible to bacterial infection. This is the typical pathway for bacterial pneumonia. Secondary infections are treated, obviously, with antibiotics.

      As for your claim that diet has nothing to do with infections, you are mistaken there, as well: diabetes or even pre-diabetic conditions will absolutely decrease your immune system's capabilities. Reducing carbohydrate intake has proven to be the best way to combat Type 2 diabetes, pre-diabetic conditions, and reactive hypoglycemia.

    25. Re:Yeah, sure it can by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Have a look at wikipedia, then.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    26. Re:Yeah, sure it can by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 2

      I haven't been seriously ill since I started working out, on average three times per week, which I've been doing for about four years now. Haven't reported sick at my job since then.
      Sometimes I get a mild irritation in the throat or nose area, but then it heals away before it gets any worse. I've never had a flu vaccine. In contrast, some of my colleagues who did get the vaccine still got a bad cold. But I understand the vaccines always target a few strains that are most likely to proliferate. Sometimes you get unlucky and the dominant strain of the year wasn't covered by the vaccine.

      So I realize it can all come down to luck as well. Or where you live. The four years I didn't get sick also coincides with moving out from the city to a more quiet town. I guess less people means less chances for infections.
      However I do get these irritations that my immune system defeats before they get any worse, so I do like to think most of it comes down to a good immune system thanks to a healthy lifestyle.

    27. Re:Yeah, sure it can by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      "If everybody is selected for, there is no selection and no evolution", evolution is not only a "positive" thing. There is an evolution. By mixing genes among everybody, including people who would have died without modern medicine, humanity gets weaker, generation after generation. Human beings are dependent upon the "progress" they created, and that will be more and more so.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    28. Re:Yeah, sure it can by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      - The influenza virus does not care about your low sugar diet.
      - The a lung infection or full on pneumonia that is caused as a complication from the flu virus cannot at all be treated with antibiotics.
      - Having no symptoms of the flu means that you didn't contract the flu, and not that your body is somehow magically better at fighting it. If you were fighting the infection you would be showing symptoms.
      - There's NO such thing as a "simple" flu. You had a common cold.

      As they say 9 out of 10 people confuse the flu with a common cold. The remaining people will never confuse the two again.

    29. Re:Yeah, sure it can by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Like those folks who were vehemently opposed to background checks for guns until they were shot at

      Hmm, based on timestamps, it only took eleven minutes to bring guns into a completely unrelated discussion.

      Not sure it's a record, but it's close....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    30. Re:Yeah, sure it can by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      based on timestamps, it only took eleven minutes to bring guns into a completely unrelated discussion. Not sure it's a record, but it's close....

      A record long time or a record short time? I'd say it's about an average.

    31. Re:Yeah, sure it can by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      [...]Like those folks who were vehemently opposed to background checks for guns until they were shot at or folks in favor of single payer healthcare because they lost their jobs after a stroke. People's inability or unwillingness to extrapolate never ceases to amaze and infuriate me...

      True story: I'm a physician. A couple years ago I was part of a team that treated a gentleman in the hospital who had a stroke, a heart attack, septic shock, and a quite large clot in the leg. He was in the ICU for several weeks, ended up with a heart stent and lost his left leg just above the knee. He was on short term dialysis, but thankfully his kidneys recovered.

      He was quite thankful at the time to the hospital, the entire staff, etc. Less than a year later, he walked into my office. His insurance (medicaid) had paid for an advanced prosthesis which could sense when he was walking and would bend the knee automatically. He just had to plug it in at night. We joked around, saying he had a bionic leg.

      Three months later he came in for a routine checkup. Still had the "bionic" leg, but complained to me that the leg charged the insurance carrier ~$20,000. I told him that if he ever complained about that leg in my presence, he would have to find someone else to take care of him. He's alive due to the combined effort of an entire ICU team and a few surgical teams and able to walk due to a machine that was considered science fiction when he was a kid.

      Unfortunately people forget real easy, once it's no longer in their immediate best interest.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    32. Re:Yeah, sure it can by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      Three months later he came in for a routine checkup. Still had the "bionic" leg, but complained to me that the leg charged the insurance carrier ~$20,000.

      Ummm... Meant to say the company that made the leg. The leg didn't make a telephone call and (I think) isn't wifi capable.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    33. Re: Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, single health care is a total myth. No nation on earth could ever provide health care to its people. Bankrupting people for a single doctors visit is the only sane and rational solution

    34. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That can't be said for certain because the strain in 1918 was particularly terrible. Young healthy adults would become symptomatic in the morning and sometimes be dead by evening. If one like that popped up again, supportive care won't be a huge help because many people won't make it to treatment in time.

      Particularly if the system is being overwhelmed by many millions of them at once.

    35. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Organizations like WHO and CDC have pretty stringent protocols and you can stop the spreading of a disease effectively by imposing quarantines. Unfortunately, for fast spreading diseases like the flu the chains of command are too slow. The CDC reports to some politicians and the DHS, they can't decide on their own to close down all air and road traffic to/from some area. The same for other authorities in other countries. Simulations show fairly precisely how fast the disease spreads and some people at the WHO would know exactly what to do. But some politicians would delay them for fear of economic losses.

      Today's outbreak of the Spanish flu would infect way more people than 100 years ago due to increased lethality. However, improved hygiene, nutrition, and living conditions this might counterbalance this effect. Maybe less would die, maybe more. But it's almost certain that many people would die because of the fear of some politicians and decision makers to incur economic losses.

      As for vaccinations: These are effective, it's just that usually several strains are underway and vaccination is only against one or few of them. However, in a realistic scenario widespread vaccination would only be available 3-6 weeks after the outbreak of a pandemic and you also have to take into account that half or more of the medical staff might be dead or unable to work by then.

    36. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, "due to increased lethality" should have been "due to increased mobility", of course. The disease is spread much faster via air travel than 100 years ago before authorities react and close it down.

    37. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't vote this guy up, I'm sure he believes what he says but this is still meaningless anecdotal bullshit. There is such a thing as science, you know, with proper statistical evidence.

    38. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is a massive outbreak of a deadly flu, you can bet your ass that people will not be accepted at hospitals any longer at some point. They will be instructed to stay at home, avoid contact with other people, and use hand sanitizers and surgical masks. And rightly so, because that way the death toll would be much lower.

    39. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't someone think of the surgeons? Volunteering their time...

    40. Re: Yeah, sure it can by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      If 3 billion people kick the bucket from flu...

      This is otherwise called the radical Greens’ wet dream.

    41. Re:Yeah, sure it can by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      We are weaker. Bad diet, less physical activities, ...

      Yeah, things are so bad that our average lifespan is only 150% of what it was back in 1918.

      Hell, most of us won't even reach 100. Well, except for the people who are kids now. They'll probably reach 100....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    42. Re:Yeah, sure it can by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Eh.. we've progressed a lot in 100 years. We have much better hygiene and sanitation practices than we did then, even without vaccines, which have also helped. My understanding is that a large portion of deaths to flu are in fact malnutrition and dehydration, which can be countered with IV fluids these days. Also better communication, though perhaps that's countered by the increase of misinformation to some extent.

      While I'm sure epidemics and pandemics will continue to occur, the effects seem unlikely to be nearly as dire. At least in developed nations.

    43. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Livius · · Score: 1

      I've noticed a trend where people have reached a point of a true inability to extrapolate. Policy decisions are based entirely on feelings, not on facts or even immediate consequences, or the reliability of the story that gave them the feelings in the first place.

    44. Re: Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My immune responses flare without sufficient glucose levels following exertion; I _need_ It no matter what your hippy yoga teacher says. Gluten and dairy proteins are practically my staples during illness flares. I'm a bit rare though, dealing with chronic Brucellosis/ GI Tularemia is not a typical case...

    45. Re:Yeah, sure it can by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      We haven't magically evolved somehow. We're still vulnerable to the same crap we always were.

      But the flu has evolved to be less virulent as killing the host is not a good survival strategy for a virus.

    46. Re:Yeah, sure it can by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      A new strain of flu could kill many more than the 1918 pandemic. Viruses are changing every year just like they always have, the difference is that the transmission rate is exponentially faster today because of the global movement of people. The ability to manufacture new vaccines fast enough to stop a pandemic is not good enough to stop a it. A new global pandemic is certain, but when it will happen is unknown. Keep your fingers crossed and your thumbs held it will not happen in your lifetime, the odds of it happening are orders of magnitude higher than a meteor strike but probably less than that of freak weather killing you.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    47. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      full on pneumonia that is caused as a complication from the flu virus cannot at all be treated with antibiotics

      That depends on the type of pneumonia - it happens to come in both viral and bacterial forms, the latter of which can be successfully treated by antibiotics.

    48. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If everybody is selected for, there is no selection and no evolution.

      There is still sexual selection though. People like making babies with healthy looking partners.

    49. Re:Yeah, sure it can by mikael · · Score: 1

      Some fungii and yeast live off sugar. So a nice dark warm moist place like human lungs combined with a free source of sugar is a perfect place to grow.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    50. Re:Yeah, sure it can by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      We haven't magically evolved somehow

      Just writing to clarify a fine point: we have in fact evolved, despite there not needing to be any magic around to make that happen. Natural selection happened in a big way in the 1918 pandemic, and past that we've had a couple of generations to incorporate mutations. I'm not quantifying how much more immune to diseases in general we are because of that, and so in that sense am not disagreeing what one interpretation of your statement, but I don't want people to casually think either that evolution is magic, or that it doesn't happen to us (and all living things) all the time, or that it isn't in some cases (not necessarily this one) significant even on small time scales.

      Put another way: yes, we have evolved, and whether that's magical or not is really more a poetic debate than anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if we happen to be approximately as susceptible to disease as we were 100 years ago, but from an evolutionary standpoint that happens to be unaddressed by the flavor of your statement.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    51. Re:Yeah, sure it can by arth1 · · Score: 1

      There is still sexual selection though. People like making babies with healthy looking partners.

      True, there is sexual selection. But sexual selection isn't primarily about picking someone healthy looking, but picking someone likely to produce children that also are attractive as a partner. A peacock or bowerbird isn't ideal from a health perspective, but because females are likely to pick the most outrageous male, those are the genes that flourish. The only reason why peacocks don't have house sized tails is that they'd die before evolving that far.

      In humans, that limitation of not being viable if going too far is quickly becoming a non-issue due to modern medical science.

      And we see this happening. Women pick taller men. They may claim they don't and that their partners being tall is just a coincidence, but statistics (and dating site preferences) show that they really do. It's sexual selection. So men are becoming taller and taller, and it's not just due to nourishment. Wealthy and well-fed people a few hundred years ago were shorter than poor people are today. At a (fairly average) height of 182.5 cm, I'd stand out as a giant among, say, Vikings or Romans.

      Women become taller too, but that is a by-product because many of the genes for height are not controlled by sex hormones. And not at the same rate as men are growing, because some of the growth genes are triggered by male hormones.

      Many of the tall men today would not have done well a few centuries ago, because the cost of raising a tall child is higher, and as an adult, there's a higher resource consumption too, and quite a few medical problems that tend to come up. But these days, that's less of an issue, and women, by picking taller men, are really peahens, driving the human species into dimorphism.
      Men, on the other hand, are not nearly as picky - there's no genetic advantage to refusing a copulation. While there are preferences, men will take what is available, and pick from the B shelf or C shelf if the A shelf isn't available.

      Anyhow, the end result is that yes, humans are changing, but not towards a species that is more robust, smart and with a better long term survival prospect as a species. We've replaced evolution with devolution and peacocking, and the gap between the sexes is widening.

    52. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You post is based on a blatant misunderstanding of how evolution works. Viruses don't develop "survival strategies". It's perfectly possible for a virus to randomly mutate into an extremely lethal variant, kill 90% of the world population of humans, and then disappear from earth or evolve into some less lethal variant. Evolution does not plan anything and does not try to avoid extinction events. In fact, the vast majority of all species that ever existed is extinct.

    53. Re:Yeah, sure it can by dryeo · · Score: 2

      The Spanish flu, in particular the second wave, was different in that it killed a lot of healthy young people, quick. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Also this chart on life expectancy at various ages, in particular around 1918, https://ourworldindata.org/wp-...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    54. Re: Yeah, sure it can by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      " That includes basic HVAC maintenance (seriously change your damn filters). "

      This costs money and building maintenance is one of the first things that gets cut when a company is trying to cut costs.

      They only take it seriously ( temporarily ) when someone gets sick due to poor maintenance and / or OSHA shows up unannounced because the employees who are forced to work in such conditions get tired of the bullshit from the company.

    55. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you are sick, and your only thought is "I wish I was healthy", you have a cold.

      If you are sick, and your only thought is "I wish I was dead", and the only reason you haven't picked up a knife and ended your suffering is because you lack the physical strength to do so, you have the flu.

      I hope this clarifies things.

    56. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      That's probably an even better point than mine. Say what you want about obesity, but obesity gives you some reserves in these sorts of situations (which is why adding fat when food is plentiful is an evolutionary advantage). If you are 6 feet/150 lbs, you aren't going to miss many meals or survive for long without being able to eat without serious problems in a few days. 6 foot, 200, you can go a while.

            In 1918, it was still realistically possible to be malnourished in the developed world just from poverty. Now, that's not realistic and obesity is epidemic among the poor. No one needs to go hungry anywhere in the developed world, and only politics, not scarcity, causes it in the 3rd world.

    57. Re: Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Preparing for it makes sense within reason, flipping out about it is counterproductive and foolish.

    58. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > - The influenza virus does not care about your low sugar diet.

      But your immune system does. Sugar suppresses the immune system.
      For people with bad diets, too much sugar, giving it up is probably better defense than
      a flu vaccine.

    59. Re:Yeah, sure it can by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Usually. But not everybody reacts to influenza differently, and different people react to different strains differently. The second time I had the Shanghai (H3N2) flu in the early 90s (same season), the first time was like you described, for more than a week. The second time was worse than a cold, but nowhere near as bad as the first round and lasted only about three or four days before I started recovering. So there's a spectrum there.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    60. Re:Yeah, sure it can by postbigbang · · Score: 2

      The symptoms of the "Spanish" flu in 1918 were rapid onset, and extreme debilitation. Cities were completely overwhelmed by very seriously sick patients, who before, were "perfectly" healthy. Several of my ancestors died of it, small town residents. Children were left without parents.

      It took as little as four to five days from onset of symptoms to death-- from the state of being an otherwise "healthy" person. People drowned in their own mucus, or had fevers that put them into in a variety of cardio jeopardy. Dead. Four days. Gone. Four days. Millions in the USA. Hospitals in those days were for the dying, band they were completely overwhelmed. If you thought The Plague was bad, this was just much faster.

      A variant of the "swine" flu could move very quickly and plainly overwhelm current medical service capabilities. We're far more mobile than 1918. Would a flu shot stanch the symptoms? It becomes a numbers game. Some will have better immune systems. Some will have a more natural propensity to succumb, randomly. Others will survive and/or be lower infection vectors, randomly. But a large outbreak could be devastating. Stanching infection vectors is the way to administrate an anti-influenza social posture.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    61. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      full on pneumonia that is caused as a complication from the flu virus cannot at all be treated with antibiotics

      That depends on the type of pneumonia - it happens to come in both viral and bacterial forms, the latter of which can be successfully treated by antibiotics.

      An unfortunate number of doctors will give assume that it's the bacterial form, merely send you antibiotics, and wonder why some of their patients end up in the hospital...or the morgue.

      If you're really prone to pneumonia, especially if you're not getting any symptoms, you do need to get tested for things that cause your immune system to stop functioning. Remember, the list there includes HIV...so yeah, your doctor should be at least mildly concerned at the routine asymptomatic infections. (If they're not? Find another doctor. Fast.)

    62. Re:Yeah, sure it can by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      What's needed is a way to prevent or mitigate cytokine release syndrome—(colloquially known as a cytokine 'storm')—that can result in a fatal outcome due to systemic organ failure.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    63. Re:Yeah, sure it can by mlyle · · Score: 1

      I don't believe HVAC filters are effective in preventing the spread of disease. They're health relevant for a lot of other reason (keeping out allergens, preventing the spread of mold spores)-- but it's not going to do anything about influenza.

    64. Re:Yeah, sure it can by mlyle · · Score: 1

      > Some will have better immune systems. Some will have a more natural propensity to succumb, randomly.

      Actually, one of the ironies of the 1918 flu is that it disproportionately killed the young and healthy-- it is thought this is because it provoked an excessive immune response ("cytokine storm") in people with the best immune systems. While the research is still young, we're coming up with a number of drug regimens to effectively treat this.

    65. Re: Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could have been worse. Chopin is great.

    66. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You used antibiotics for viral infections - that was your problem. Antibiotics only work against bacteria, and they not only kill pathogens, but also beneficial strains that have symbiotic relationship with you. Taking antibiotics for no reason like you did in fact weakened your immune system and you were screwed.

    67. Re:Yeah, sure it can by houghi · · Score: 1

      How many people would still go to work, because they get fired if they don't?
      How much people will not see a doctor, because they are too expensive?

      If we hit that 1% fatality rate, it is already too late.
      The people will already be sick.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    68. Re: Yeah, sure it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Thanos's

    69. Re:Yeah, sure it can by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      Actually, an "all varieties" flu vaccine may be just around the corner. Rather than antibodies against the capsule proteins, which are constantly mutating, they go after the stalk proteins, which don't change very much or very often.

  3. But only the "wrong" kind of people by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    Because the herd needs thinning.

    1. Re:But only the "wrong" kind of people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reverting to AC to preserve mod points, but one thought I had was to wonder how much larger the world population would be today if 50 million people hadn't died.

      I was astounded a few years ago when some number of someone's great grandparents who had a big family was estimated. I couldn't believe it at first, but the math worked out.

      I'm tempted to try doing the math here, but I'm going to have to make assumptions and probably very bad ones because I have no idea how to realistically estimate this.

      If I assume that they're 25 million couples who would have had 3 children each and those children grew to adulthood and had 3 more children every 20 years....

      And I just realized after 100 years, I'd have to account for people dying too.

      I'm not even going to attempt the math, but if someone else wants to I'd be very curious what they come up with.

    2. Re:But only the "wrong" kind of people by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      s/brown/orange/

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:But only the "wrong" kind of people by DanDD · · Score: 1

      This is a legitimate question, along with:

      * What would be the population of Russia today if the Soviets hadn't killed 20 million of their own people?
      * What would be the population of China today if the Taiping Rebellion hadn't killed 50 to 100 million of their own people?
      * What would be the population of the United States today if 800,000 people hadn't been killed in the Civil War?

      The simplest model is just exponential math, and is quite easy. Take a look at:
      https://www.rapidtables.com/ca...

      A very slightly less simple model is the logistics equation:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      For comparison, enter the simple formulas into a spreadsheet, see if you can duplicate or get close to the figures on Wikipedia. If you don't have Microsoft Excel handy, download LibreOffice and start calculating and graphing. It's easy and fun! And it will give you power...

      Even better, do the math in Python and generate CSV tables, or spreadsheets, or just graph directly from Python. Or get uber geeky and use the Julia language. Or get old school and break out the slide rule and some paper. If you have an old HP calculator, bonus points. I keep all mine sealed and displayed in a glass case, and only use the HP RPN calculator app on my cell phone :)

      --
      "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
    4. Re:But only the "wrong" kind of people by DanDD · · Score: 1

      Please let it affect people with brown skin...

      Though you are an anonymous coward and already modded down, I hope that should there be an epidemic, that you and all your loved ones are spared, along with your neighbors, and your neighbors neighbors, and that in the process you live to see charity coming from and distributed to all people, regardless of ethnicity.

      That's my hope. However, I am quite prepared to deal with whatever 'alternatives' that less enlightened people, such as yourself, might try to force on others. When it comes to racism and hate, I am neither anonymous, nor a coward, and I am far from alone.

      --
      "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
    5. Re:But only the "wrong" kind of people by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      A lot of victims, probably the vast majority, are people with one foot in the grave already, and the flu tips them over the edge. So less long term effect than if the victims were random like some other diseases.

    6. Re:But only the "wrong" kind of people by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      No, I meant the sarcasm-impared. ;-)

    7. Re:But only the "wrong" kind of people by coastwalker · · Score: 2

      You guessed wrong. The 1918 pandemic was more lethal for healthy young fit adults because it was the strong response of their immune systems that killed them. Good luck!

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    8. Re: But only the "wrong" kind of people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok..... a superbug comes along and kills 90% of the white people in Europe or North America.
      The world economy collapses. The Chinese embark upon a war of expansion. Wars are fought, nukes exchanged, we're knocked back to the stone age.

      A superbug kills 90% of the blacks in Africa. Short term economic disruptions. Africa re colonised by Europeans and NE Asians.

      50 years later Africa is a paradise.

      See how it works ?

  4. Better question... by magarity · · Score: 1

    Will it bring people together to solve the problem and care for each other or will it make us even more isolated and insulated?

    1. Re:Better question... by DanDD · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately (see above), I think there is one simple answer to your question: yes.

      --
      "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
  5. As it's available, yes. by MiniMike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Have you gotten your 2018 flu shot?

    They offer flu shots for free at my office. I have kids in school and elderly relatives, darn right I got it. Also I don't believe in crazy conspiracy theories, so no reason not to get one. Not sure why you want to know, but here it is.

    1. Re:As it's available, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Have you gotten your 2018 flu shot?

      They offer flu shots for free at my office. I have kids in school and elderly relatives, darn right I got it. Also I don't believe in crazy conspiracy theories, so no reason not to get one. Not sure why you want to know, but here it is.

      -

      If you're lucky, the flu shot you got will be effective against the flu strain you are exposed to. If you are not lucky, the shot won't help you at all.

      So the question you need to ask yourself is, "Do I feel lucky ?"

      Well ... DO YA, punk ?

    2. Re:As it's available, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone I know is not getting a flu shot because they're allergic to it...some people do have a reason not to get one.

    3. Re:As it's available, yes. by antdude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are they really free? Usually, they are from your medical insurance like your employer's.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    4. Re:As it's available, yes. by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Vaccines are usually incubated in chicken eggs and some people are strongly allergic to the chicken egg protein, so there are good scientific reasons why some people cannot use the standard shot.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    5. Re:As it's available, yes. by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >Also I don't believe in crazy conspiracy theories, so no reason not to get one"

      It has nothing to do with "conspiracies." If you really did get a flu vaccine, then you SHOULD have been given a list of at least some of the reasons why it might be avoided. For some, severe allergic reaction (although a tiny percent). And for a much larger percent, getting flu-like symptoms if your immune system suddenly identifies the dead virus as an immediate threat and launches anywhere from a mild to extreme attack. Then there is pain of the injection- which for some is mild, and others can be much more than just mild and for several days. The latter happens to me frequently, to the point of some years barely being able to raise my arm for two days after. And there is a small chance of secondary infection at the injection site. And a small chance of flareup of various auto-immune disorders.

      Make no mistake, I am very pro-vaccine. And I get a flu vaccine injection EVERY YEAR. I also encourage others to get it, and strongly support it being VOLUNTARY ONLY. But to pretend there are NO reasons to avoid it is irresponsible just like pretending there are no benefits.

    6. Re:As it's available, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The effects you list don't fit "crazy" or "conspiracy". That was probably a reference to anti-vaxxer fiction.

    7. Re:As it's available, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going AC for confidentiality reasons: There's also some people who react really badly to needles--which isn't limited to psychological problems, mine are physiological in origin (psychological part is due to clinical shock being not a fun experience)--and it can be annoyingly difficult to track down who has the alternate versions of the vaccine if you need them.

    8. Re:As it's available, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make no mistake, I am very pro-vaccine.

      Your capital letter usage profile suggests otherwise, citizen.

  6. Two views... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    (1) This would be terrible, no one wants to lose their friends, neighbors, or even their own life.
    (2) World's overpopulated anyway -- humanity needs a good thinning to ensure survival of the species on an overburdened planet.

    1. Re:Two views... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50 million isn't enough to make a dent in the human pop.

      The flu is goin' to have to do a lot better 'n that if it wants to make a dent.

    2. Re:Two views... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no one wants to lose their friends, neighbors, or even their own life.

      I would love for a few of my neighbors to die. The question is, if there were a deadly epidemic, would the right ones die?

      Also some of us aren't necessarily all that thrilled with life and while we're not quite suicidal we sometimes see death as a way out of all the shit in our lives.

      I'm not sure dying of influenza would be a good way to go but as a nurse once told me, dying is NEVER pleasant. I think she may be wrong about that, probably due to seeing too many people die in hospitals. Certainly there are peaceful ways to die...like in your sleep hopefully without pain...or in your sleep having a coughing fit unable to breathe as a complication of the flu. Think of the nightmares you might have along with that especially if it took several hours before you finally couldn't breathe in enough oxygen to survive.

      And there are certainly quicker ways to die. If someone fires a bullet into your head and you die within a second do you even have time to feel any pain?

    3. Re:Two views... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (2.1) We'll add those 50 million back in less than a year.

    4. Re:Two views... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      World's overpopulated anyway -- humanity needs a good thinning to ensure survival of the species on an overburdened planet.

      That's your opinion, entirely unjustified by evidence or reason.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  7. Haven’t gotten mine yet by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    The Pacific Northwest flu season tends to have a later onset, for whatever reason. So that, combined with my mad procrastination skillz, means I often don’t get around to getting the shot until November or even early December.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  8. Bird Flu by balsy2001 · · Score: 3, Funny

    If the bird flu goes airborne we could be in trouble.

    --
    GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    1. Re:Bird Flu by sjames · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there...

    2. Re:Bird Flu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember when swine flu?

  9. we can but hope! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As there are far to many people.

    1. Re:we can but hope! by sjames · · Score: 1

      You first.

  10. Yes, I Got My Flu Shot. But Will It Work? by DERoss · · Score: 4, Informative

    The main problem with flu shots is that they target a particular variety of influenza. Too often, that is the wrong variety for the pending influenza season.

    Last season (2017-2018), my wife and I got our flu shots early in the fall. In the week just before New Year 2018, we both thought we were coming down with colds. The day after New Year, we felt sick enough to see our family doctor, who swabbed high in our noses. After dinner, he called us to tell us we tested positive for influenza.

    Later that same night (still 2 January), my wife could not stop coughing. Since she had a heart problem (now fixed), I suggested that I should take her to the local hospital's emergency room. She did not want to go, but I insisted. She was hospitalized for a week with pneumonia although we were both current with both kinds of pneumonia shots. (According to our doctor, the two types of shots only protect against about 60% of the types of pneumonia.)

    Each year, we still get our flu shots in the hope that, this time, the shots are targeting the variety of influenza that will be going around. My wife got her flu shot in August, and I got mine the beginning of this month (September).

    An attempt to develop a universal flu shot is underway. The goal is not to target any one variety of influenza but instead to protect against all varieties.

    1. Re: Yes, I Got My Flu Shot. But Will It Work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KCN in a pretty universal flu shot. You definitely won't get flu

  11. Yes, and it does help. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been taking my "flu shots" for at least 8 years. They do help, including due to cross-immunity. I *do* get ill, but the colds are less severe, and it became rare for me to get even one strong cold (which would be a weak influenza infection)...

    One thing people often don't grasp is that vaccines can help the defense against close-enough bacteria and viruses, they are not just for immunity (and often they won't get you immunity, but rather a much better immune response against those agents, which means a lot less severe (and shorter) infection -- which is the difference between life and death.

    One prime example is the vaccine against tuberculosis, which more often than not, is helpful against leprosy to the point of ensuring you are not going to get leprosy even in a situation of high exposition (e.g. when your partner/parent got leprosy).

    The influenza shots work the same way. Your colds (and influenzas-that-were-not-exactly-the-ones-in-the-vaccine) will be less severe if you get one at all (*I* always do, but I will take two weak colds an year over the ten or so, with at least two that would leave me bedridden for a few days, that I used to get before I started taking the influenza vaccine).

  12. Weak vs Strong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In any given year, millions of people catch the flu. The vast majority of those who die as a result, are the very old, the very young and those with other health issues. One of the things that made the 'Spanish Flu' pandemic of 1918 so uncommon was that a high percentage of those who died were young, strong, and otherwise healthy people.

    1. Re:Weak vs Strong by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I can't be arsed to look it up, but wasn't it something to do with over-triggering the immune system?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. Overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are way overdue for a good population culling event.

    A good war.

    A good pandemic.

    Or why not both?

    I just hope the stupid, stupid/rich people are culled. I've got a lot of remedies and snake oil to sell.

  14. Culling the herd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    World overpopulated anyway. #giveChinaFlu

  15. no vaccination; strong natural immunity by dltaylor · · Score: 1

    Over many decades, I have had influenza 4 times: once after a vaccination back in the '70s (US Army insisted; probably a coincidence) that lasted 3 days; once in the '80s, about a week; once in the '90s, again about a week; and a few years ago, lasted about 10 hours (fever, chills, very sleepy; I know it was the flu because my road trip companion tested positive and was down for a few days after Tamiflu). She just had a full week, while I stayed over to take care of her, but didn't catch it. In high school, my entire family (parents, siblings, grandmother) had the whole 7-10 day case, while I had nothing.

    I'm very lucky, I know, but I'll keep trusting my apparent immunity, at least until they have a known-good broad spectrum vaccine.

    1. Re:no vaccination; strong natural immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was riding my prior immunity until severe flu last year. I still have nerve damage from it that I am dealing with. From now on, I'm taking every shot I can get.

  16. Re:Yes, I Got My Flu Shot. But Will It Work? by evenmoreconfused · · Score: 2

    Up until this year, Quebec has offered free flu shots to kids of 6-24 months and everyone over sixty.

    But they've decided to cancel them this year for all but "at risk" individuals, not as a cost saving measure, but because they've concluded they don't really work. Or at least haven't for some years now.

    http://www.iheartradio.ca/cjad...

    --
    No. Well...maybe. Actually, yes. It really just depends.
  17. There's a lot that can be done by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    when faced with a large outbreak. Aside from flu shots there's quarantine procedures, extra steps to be taken at hospitals and clinics, keeping water clean, etc, etc. I suspect I'm only scratching the surface since I don't work for the CDC and I haven't studied flue outbreaks.

    That's another problem the world has (America especially). This idea that we can't do anything about these things. It's mostly from folks who, well, haven't really studied the topic. It's part of a general antipathy towards experts and "elites", a desire to not be told what to do and a desire to think that "common sense" can solve problems.

    Thing is, the world is really, really counter-intuitive. There's so much in this world that doesn't work they way you think it would. Like how it's several times cheaper & more effective at stabilizing a nation to send some food aid than troops, but that if you overdo the aid local businesses can't thrive because they can't compete with free.

    The world is a really, really complex beast. Even things we think are simple aren't. There's damn near nothing that couldn't do with a bit more study and care.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:There's a lot that can be done by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Informative

      when faced with a large outbreak. Aside from flu shots there's quarantine procedures, extra steps to be taken at hospitals and clinics, keeping water clean, etc, etc.

      If you have a large outbreak and it's the kind of flu that knocks people straight on their asses instead of just giving them some sniffles and aches and pains, there aren't enough medical care facilities to handle ~10% of the population suddenly needing medical care to potentially prevent their deaths. Even if you get a flu that has a 10% mortality rate, with 10% of the population catching it, that's around 3.5 million deaths in the U.S. That's well over the annual number of deaths and having that many in a short window would create large issue in itself.

      That's another problem the world has (America especially). This idea that we can't do anything about these things.

      There are things that can be done (I would say you're probably going to have the best results by taking personal precautions than anything the government tries to do), but it's not as easy as saying that we've got a really good plan and expecting the universe to go along with it. As the saying goes, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Outside of having something akin to antibiotics that would be easily distributable and effective at treating the illness, most of what you might try to propose is just not going to be feasible or nearly as effective as you'd like. If you could have these big plans at a national level that actually worked anywhere near as well as we would like, the Soviets would have won the cold war.

    2. Re:There's a lot that can be done by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Those experts and elites came up with the idea to start a war with Iraq. Because the people there were oppressed, see? And we need to "free" them, even though they never asked. Now Americans need to spend our blood and treasure intervening in every country around the globe, without bothering to ask first? I've got a better idea, let's work on ourselves and stop bullying. Remember how we thought it would be a great idea to intervene in Haiti and then our NGOs stole the reconstruction money, raped the children, and then the UN shit in their drinking water and caused thousands of deaths with a cholera outbreak?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:There's a lot that can be done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you're going to love the quarantines and sick wards like in the Spanish flu outbreak.

    4. Re:There's a lot that can be done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be stupid. The "experts" and "elites" were driven by an understanding that the United States had created Saddam Hussein in the first place. He was our mad dog designed to contain Iran. He functioned well until he started turning on other countries, like Kuwait. Foolishly, GHW Bush left him in power after putting him under nigh-permanent sanctions.

      Those sanctions cost time and money, so it was seen as prudent to finally eliminate him. Too bad the occupation following his ouster wound up being more expensive in terms of human and monetary capital than the sanctions. Well, almost: the sanctions did a good job of killing off Iraqi civilians. So the United States traded some money and lives of soldiers to end the killing of Iraqi civilians via starvation and disease.

      In the long run, the human costs of maintaining the regime of sanctions against Hussein would have been greater than the war started by W. Was it worth it? Maybe. How much do you like Iraqis?

    5. Re:There's a lot that can be done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be stupid. The "experts" and "elites" were driven by an understanding that the United States had created Saddam Hussein in the first place. He was our mad dog designed to contain Iran. He functioned well until he started turning on other countries, like Kuwait. Foolishly, GHW Bush left him in power after putting him under nigh-permanent sanctions.

      The US _LIED_ to the UN Security council about Sadam's military, pure and simple. I still remember Collan Powwel's final speech showing tankers that never actually existed. The "experts", were either lied to or part of the deception, not everyone is dumb enough to believe they didn't know. That part is critical because it undermined those "experts" future credibility. It also affected every other so called NGO. Few of them actually ran covert ops for the CIA. Bottom line, the UN Security coucil's own inspectors (Blix) DIDN'T FIND ANY WEAPONS, yet the US proceeded with the invasion. Thus creating "preemtive war" (yes, that was their own language.

    6. Re:There's a lot that can be done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is defeatist nonsense. A combination of strict quarantine, massive amounts of hand disinfectants and other hygiene articles, and vaccinations can stop an infectious disease. The problem is merely whether politicians react fast enough or whether they hesitate for days or weeks because they fear the economic consequences of a lockdown.

    7. Re:There's a lot that can be done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No plan survives contact with the enemy. True, but that's only the newsbite part of it. The followon is that you need multiple plans, contingencies, mitigation measures, etc. Using "no plan survives..." as an excuse for doing nothing simply means that the enemy wins.

    8. Re:There's a lot that can be done by sphealey · · Score: 1

      - - - - - Aside from flu shots there's quarantine procedures, extra steps to be taken at hospitals and clinics, keeping water clean, etc, etc. - - - - -

      One of the problems with the 1918 epidemic was the the US Army was getting really well organized to provide emergency medical care. So when the first round of rapid spread influenza (now believed to have originated in a Kansas training depot) knocked down or killed the on-site nurses and doctors the Army rapidly shipped in replacements. Repeat that a few cycles and you can guess what the result was.

    9. Re:There's a lot that can be done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Public education. Tell people to make sure they've got enough food in their houses to survive a week without going out, or getting a delivery. That way, when they get sick, they won't die of "not being able to go shopping".

      It's a solution that's reasonably cheap (per individual), and more importantly, it scales: virtually everyone can do it, and if they do, it will put a substantial dent in the total mortality.

  18. Re:Please let it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WDC too

  19. The solution by slashmydots · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's a very, VERY sensitive tipping point when it comes to infections spreading or not. It's very close math. You know what countries have very few problems with flu outbreaks? The ones where it's illegal to go to work with the flu.

    1. Re:The solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet in those countries employers are mandated to provide sick days. Good luck with that in the US. There isn't even government mandated minimum vacation days. Even with generous vacation benefits provided by some companies, their uses are frowned upon if you expect to reach the top of your profession.

    2. Re:The solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People don't realize that. The difference between 0.95 and 1.05 is all the difference in the world when it's in an exponent.

    3. Re:The solution by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the crazy part in the U.S. Even though we had a fairly bad outbreak last year, right after the 5 minutes of doom and gloom on the nightly news, they urged everyone to put the fear aside and go to the crowded malls for a few hours of intensive exposure and the all important shopping.

    4. Re:The solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but are those metric log odds?

    5. Re:The solution by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Can you go to work when you have the flu? I thought the flu proper knocked you on your ass. You don't feel like crawling to the bathroom, much less getting up and going to work.

  20. Which one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I hope you get the flu and die from it."

    You mean "I hope you get H635N2746 and die from it". Or whatever the new strain that pops up next year is. Influenza is not a single virus. The flu shot is a mix of the previous strains.

    I won't die from it, because I'll get a vaccine for H635N2746 as soon as it's flagged as a possible pandemic. I won't wait for a generic cocktail of flu vaccines injected in autumn, and last years H1N1 injections won't cover me.

    You need to stop being so triggered, and understand the limits of the vaccination. When the news reports a new outbreak of a strain that the UN deems a possible pandemic, you need to understand that LAST YEARS FLU SHOT WON"T PROTECT YOU.

    1. Re:Which one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS! If you dont vaccinate for everything thats the reason we have AIDSSSSS. It kills everyone who is vaccinated because of people like you who dont. I hope you get it!

    2. Re:Which one? by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Not entirely true, vaccination for other kinds of flu often imparts partial immunity. Remember that the very first vaccine was created after it was noticed that milk maids exposed to Cowpox never caught the killer Smallpox.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  21. flu shot didn't help by schematix · · Score: 1, Interesting

    had the flu last year and felt like i was going to die. does that count?

    --
    Scott
  22. Herd Immunity by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Flu shots will reduce the number of people who die from the flu.

    There are a number of people who will contract the flu virus but never show any symptoms. These people will still spread the flu to their loved ones, co-workers, people on the train, etc.

    This is why, "But I never get the flu," is not a good excuse for not getting the flu shot. Even though the flu shot does not work 100%, it still saves lives, and the more people who get the shot, the more lives that are saved. If people who "never get the flu" get the flu shot, more lives will be saved.

    If you have any kind of insurance, the shot is free. If you don't have any insurance, the shot is free. Look around. I think CVS or Walgreens has a deal where you pay some small amount, say $5 for a flu shot and they give you $10 in coupons or something, but there are free shots for almost everyone.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Herd Immunity by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      There are a number of people who will contract the flu virus but never show any symptoms. These people will still spread the flu

      Flu spreads by droplets that are coughed or sneezed out. If you don't have coughing or sneezing symptoms, you aren't going to be an effective vector.

    2. Re: Herd Immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only it wasn't such a PITA to leave work to get a shot. Just deliver the damn thing to my home and I'll prick myself. Done!

    3. Re:Herd Immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Last time I got a flu shot, it gave me autism. Now I am a better software developer because of it. So there is an added bonus.

    4. Re:Herd Immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am NOT a nutter anti-vaxxer. Nor am I advocating that people don't get the shot -- there's no real downside, BUT....

      One problem with the flu shot is that it is predictive. There have been many, MANY years where the "type" of flu vaccinated for, is not the type the spread through the population. Often, the shot is useless. The flu is really thousands of flus, sadly.

    5. Re:Herd Immunity by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Flu spreads by droplets that are coughed or sneezed out. If you don't have coughing or sneezing symptoms, you aren't going to be an effective vector.

      I believe that's a misconception. Flu can also be spread by touch or even just by breathing.

      https://www.medicalnewstoday.c...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Herd Immunity by willy_me · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Flu spreads by droplets that are coughed or sneezed out. If you don't have coughing or sneezing symptoms, you aren't going to be an effective vector.

      Until you kiss your spouse. Or forget to wash your hands before touching produce at the market. There are still plenty of ways to spread the flu - any only one of them needs to work in order to create a new, effective vector.

    7. Re:Herd Immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when did the flu shot prevent people from contracting or spreading the flu? It doesn't, on either count. Especially if you are vaccinated against last year's strain, which presumably is NOT the strain that will cause a global pandemic. Best case scenario, global pandemic is detected early (in China), and labs roll out an effective vaccine which can be distributed to North America and Europe before it has time to spread very far. Then it makes sense for EVERYONE to vaccinate, just in case.

      Otherwise, MAYBE the flu shot will make you into a less-effective vector for some non-trivial strain of the flu that was analyzed by labs 6+ months ago. Maybe.

      Meanwhile, the flu shot is the medical system's response to categorically failing to contain influenza. We have never beaten back the spread of influenza. It keeps coming and coming, in new strains every year or every other year.

      REAL vaccines work. The flu vaccine is a joke. You are not supposed to be re-vaccinated every year! We need a different strategy.

    8. Re:Herd Immunity by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Since when did the flu shot prevent people from contracting or spreading the flu? It doesn't, on either count. Especially if you are vaccinated against last year's strain, which presumably is NOT the strain that will cause a global pandemic.

      Don't spread lies when people's health is at stake. When you hear talking about a flu vaccine that's for the wrong strain, it's never "useless". IN 2017, the flu shot was 30% effective. That's a huge reduction in hte number of vectors spreading the disease. And a lot of lives saved.

      https://www.skepticalraptor.co...

      https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:Herd Immunity by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      This is why, "But I never get the flu," is not a good excuse for not getting the flu shot.

      9 out of 10 people confuse the common cold with the flu. The remaining 1 in 10 never confuse the two again.

      I've never met a person who's actually had the flu that hasn't gone and gotten the flu shot yearly afterwards. But then flu shots are pretty much free where I live (free for the at risk, free for low income people, free from most employers, and $10 for rich healthy self employed people).

    10. Re:Herd Immunity by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      .... Until you kiss your spouse.

      That depends on who else they have been kissing.

    11. Re: Herd Immunity by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      If only it wasn't such a PITA to leave work to get a shot. Just deliver the damn thing to my home and I'll prick myself. Done!

      Let’s hear you say that again as you’re locked in your apartment while “28 Monkeys” rages outside.

    12. Re:Herd Immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The statistics knowledge is weak with this one. The effective rate isn't about the number of cases prevented, it is about the chance the flu vaccine will prevent/reduce an active virus strain (this is per strain, not per person). (active has a special definition about number of cases.) It has more to do about the strains in the cocktail and how fast the active strains mutate.

      Here is a simplified example, assume you get a flu shot that was developed for 3 strains A,B,C (based on CDC statistical forecasts). The real data that comes in say there are 3 active flu strains in the wild A,D,E....cool, your flu shot is 33% effective. What they don't tell you is A is 5% of the cases and only saw in Florida, D is 60% across midwest/west and E is 35% and concentrated on the East coast. Where do you live and travel?

      Something like 1 in 4 people go in every year (for other than normal checkups and stuff) So something like 2.5% of people who go in, go in for the flu. Of those maybe 25% actually have respiratory samples sent in, Let's be generous and say 75% actually test positive. So what is that, something like 0.1% of the population add to the stats the CDC uses. And to make matters worse, it doesn't account for everyone with a mild flu strain, or with reduced symptoms (maybe because they got a flu shot). Why did I go on this diatribe...to show that the CDC has shit data to work with and therefore comes up with shit results.

      There are also cases every year of people dieing from the flu shot(very rare), getting the flu from the flu shot(usually only minor symptoms) (5-10% each year)
      So...
      if you are high risk, get a flu shot.
      If you are around a bunch of high risk people, get a flu shot.
      If you travel a bunch, get a flu shot.
      If you randomly kiss a bunch of people, get a flu shot.

      If you don't fit any of those, then it is up to you.
      If you choose to not get a flu shot, and your company gives them out for free at some health day, work from home for the rest of that week because that is your most likely time to have contact with one of those flu shot induced mild symptoms people.

      If you do get a flu shot and have any symptoms of the flu, please go in and demand your results are sent in to a lab for testing. Maybe then the low paid statisticians at the CDC (because the high paid ones are in industry) will have a chance of getting it right at some point.

    13. Re: Herd Immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Negatory, bro.. Same issue is clear as day with vaccine development for pathogens like Tularemia and Brucella that both employ poorly understood virulence factors. It's proven time and again low-virulence vaccine strains of ABC are brutally useless when vaccinated hosts are challenged using hyper-virulent form of same pathogen. Death getting delayed slightly is the most that may happen from being pre-vaccinated for seasonal flu.

    14. Re:Herd Immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We do not save lives, we prolong them at the expense of the environment. Assuming that vaccinations are safe and effective, what we are doing is setting ourselves up for overpopulation and massive population collapse due to starvation and lack of clean water. We are playing the short game at the expense of the long game.

      Disease keeps our population in check. With disease conquered, we end up in a situation similar to this.

    15. Re: Herd Immunity by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      If only it wasn't such a PITA to leave work to get a shot. Just deliver the damn thing to my home and I'll prick myself. Done!

      Assuming you eventually leave work at some point, this shouldn't be a problem (at least where I live). Where I live, I pass teo 24 hour walgreens and several other pharmacies on my way home from work that offer flu shots with no appointment.

    16. Re: Herd Immunity by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      One problem with the flu shot is that it is predictive. There have been many, MANY years where the "type" of flu vaccinated for, is not the type the spread through the population. Often, the shot is useless. The flu is really thousands of flus, sadly.

      The flu vaccine is based on the most common strains of the previous year. Yes, it's somewhat predictive but have you ever considered that the reason the strain that is vaccinated against is not the one that is most common is *because* it is vaccinated against. That's what you would expect if a large percentage of the population is immune to a certain strain. You would expect that strain to not spread as much.

    17. Re:Herd Immunity by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The world is overpopulated, statistically with a lot of useless lives.
      Buy time to get off the rock.
      Let them die.

      I'm guessing that a lot of the people who believe there is such a thing as "useless lives" actually believe that their own lives are not useless.

      I don't want to be the one to have to break the news to them.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re: Herd Immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racist!

    19. Re:Herd Immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off.

    20. Re:Herd Immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump's still president and you are still impotent. Are you tired of being on the losing team?

    21. Re:Herd Immunity by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      If you advocate allowing millions to die painful deaths and standing around watching, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and off yourself? No? Didn't think so. STFU, you sociopathic fuck.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    22. Re:Herd Immunity by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      To follow up, you must be one of those who wholeheartedly agrees with Stalin when he said, 'A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.' Try pulling his dead, rotting dick out of your mouth.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    23. Re:Herd Immunity by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If anyone still happens upon this thread, you might want to look at this:

      https://www.bbc.com/news/world...

      https://boingboing.net/2018/08...

      Go get your shot. People who are warning against vaccines are not your friends.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:Herd Immunity by houghi · · Score: 1

      I get them free at work. Just add my name to the list and you get an apointment with a nurse at a specific day and time. Takes all of 10 minutes.

      They are not obligatory as the company can not enforce anything medical, as they are not a doctor. No idea how much the company pays, but I am sure that it is not much or the profit of not having sick people is worth it as they are cheapskates.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    25. Re:Herd Immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you're an idiot savant. More idiot than savant.

    26. Re:Herd Immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not shedding virus if you don't show symptoms, so you're just a blithering idiot spouting off ignorant nonsense. Seriously, don't post on topics you have absolutely no knowledge of.

    27. Re:Herd Immunity by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You're not shedding virus if you don't show symptoms

      You don't have to show symptoms to spread the virus. Kiss your wife? Your kids? Rub your eye and shake your co-worker's hand? Those are all activities that humans do, not that you'd know anything about it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    28. Re: Herd Immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. They always say to proactive replace your tires when they get worn, to avoid a flat or dangerous blowout. Every few years I did, and I never had a blowout. But my windshield cracked three times while on the highway. We should be replacing windshields proactively instead. Ditto for bath safety mats. My grandpa fell and broke his hip on the driveway. The bath safety matt is clearly useless.

      My greater grandpa on the other side of the family always warned my great gramps to avoid the army, to avoid getting shot or put in front line combat. Then the Nazis came to power and he got drafted. He managed to avoid front line combat, but still died during the war in Auschwitz. Totally avoidable tragedy. They really should have put guard rails on those towers so people don't fall and die.

      Anyway, it's a all a scam, like global warming or people from made up states like "Idaho".

  23. Re:Please let it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wager many people walking around California already have a cocktail of drugs in their system. They'll be fine.

  24. Re:Yes, I Got My Flu Shot. But Will It Work? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

    So the kids are dying anyway? I am perplexed by this post.

  25. It'll be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With modern air travel to spread infections, crazies who refuse vaccinations, and lower income people in the developed and undeveloped nations who lack access to vaccinations providing more hosts for viruses to mutate. If that all isn't bad enough, China is now refusing to share newly discovered strains of the flu virus in breach of WHO guidelines.

  26. Chickens don't fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neither do pigs.

    Avian influenza, Swine flu/ HnnNnn pass to humans because people in Asia raise 'house chicken', chickens running around a house eating food scraps. The constant bird-human interaction passed the infection over, faster than people could recover from the flu they caught.

    Wild birds tend not to be a problem.

    1. Re: Chickens don't fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes wild birds are a problem... Depends on the virility of the flu strain, but yeah migrating flocks spread things around pretty easily and quickly.

      There are many factors, and you don't work for CDC. So stfu

  27. Is there such a thing as binary virus? by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    I'm (obviously) not a biologist. Is there such a thing as a binary virus, either naturally occurring or engineered. Is it even within the realm of possibility?

    Like a binary nerve agent, each individual virus is relatively harmless. Each one by itself wouldn't raise a flag. Authorities might not even consider it a worthy endeavor to develop a vaccine. If they did, most people wouldn't feel the need to get inoculated. Only when a person contracts the second does it become fatal.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    1. Re:Is there such a thing as binary virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I worked with a medical team in the 1980's who produced evidence that this was the case with AIDS. (First you get HIV, then you come in to contact with X, and it turns to AIDS. The statistics showed X was not elapsed time).

      However, they were refused funding to investigate further, and as the number of people with AIDS grew, it was no longer possible to argue from the rate and style of infection, so it would require a far more complex investigation - which no one wants to fund because of politics.

    2. Re:Is there such a thing as binary virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Albeit not quite a binary virus scenario you describe -- hepatitis d, really isn't capable of being infectious on its own, but if acquired along with hepatitis b either as a co-infection with acute hepatitis b or superinfection on someone chronically infected with hepatitis b. It really potentiates the risk of cancer/death.

  28. not only can, but most likely by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    China is currently holding back on Flu that is moving from Chicken (avian flu) to Humans. It is killing everybody that it infects. Once this one mixes with Human flu and can fully transfer human2human(which it is thought IS the case), then we will see a pandemic.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:not only can, but most likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why haven't we seen the pandemic then?

      Chinese just naturally healthier than obese Americans?

  29. Re:Please let it... by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

    And a happy, hearty "Fuck you!" from NY (western NY, in particular), to you, too.

  30. Flu Shots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeesh. What if I don't WANT the flu? Every time I've gotten a flu shot, I've immediately gotten the flu.

    What I have determined that I actually need is something that PREVENTS the flu. That would be pretty sweet.

    1. Re:Flu Shots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how people manage to get the flu from a vaccine that is made of a few proteins of a virus (not the whole thing). It is basically impossible.

      You are likely allergic to something in there, or it is psychosomatic, or you are so utterly weak against colds, the one in a 10^15 virus that survives the fragmentation process manages to get you -- which is also basically impossible, you'd need a clean room to survive if you were that weak against the cold virus...

    2. Re:Flu Shots by PPH · · Score: 1

      Actually, what seems like the flu in these cases is your body's immune system firing up to attack the virus (albeit an inert version). That's what is supposed to happen.

      or you are so utterly weak against colds

      This.

      PP probably has such a small physical reserve to fight sicknesses that, were he to actually come down with a real one, it might kill him. These are exactly the sort of people who need the shots.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Flu Shots by business_kid · · Score: 1

      I Avoid Flu shots annually. No, we don't take them. My mother-in-law had 2 bad reactions to them, and two other close relations have had serious side effects from flu shots. We're relatively healthy. There's every chance we will be exposed to every flu because of the circles we move in, but we'll survive if we get a flu. I'd rather chance getting the flu than annually expose myself to the vaccine . We never know the side effects of a flu vaccine. When I was younger with kids, we had a 3 in 1 vaccine for kids shoved at us energetically. We opted for a tried & trusted 2 in 1 for them, despite strenuous opposition from medical folks. I found out later we were in a small group (I have epilepsy) whose kids would suffer serious damage from the vaccine. That information wasn't available to dispensing staff. Many folks blame their children's autism on that 3 in 1 vaccine. I don't buy the 'few proteins' argument. Do you work for a drugs firm?

  31. Anecdote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't had the flu in about 25 years.

    This may be due to not having a lot of contact with children and working from home a lot and just washing my hands frequently. I don't use hand sanitizer, just soap and mildly hot water. I don't get shots mainly because I hate needles and sometimes such things have a short-term negative effect on me. Sure, it may only be a day or two, but why put myself through that?

    OTOH, a sysadmin friend of mine who constantly had to run around helping users with their computers used to constantly get colds and the flu...until he moved into a position that didn't require him to constantly touch other people's keyboards.

    The last time I got the flu I quit smoking for 9 days!

    It probably would have been permanent because I was already over the flu and had even managed to go to a couple of bars without having a cigarette and this was when non-smoking bars didn't exist.

    I was a non-smoker thanks to the flu...and then I found a half a pack that had fallen underneath some furniture and it took me about 10 minutes before I smoked one - just to see what it was like.

    And then I smoked for another 20 years or so. I can't even remember how long it's been since I had a cigarette.

    Sorry for rambling...I've had a few drinks.

  32. cigs and beer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've been smoking a pack a day for 40 years, and drinking at least a 12 pack a week. I don't get sick ever. This is just one data point; use it any way you wish.

    1. Re: cigs and beer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You lucky bugger. I get sick maybe 10-12 times a year (cold/flu or severe sore throat), doctors not helpful diagnosing the cause. Reading online there are a plenty of people that experience the same, but cannot see any common thread between the cases.

    2. Re: cigs and beer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tularemia comes in many strains that are nearly impossible to recognize.. Mycoplasma fermentans fermented and a half dozen lesser understood cousins are even harder than impossible. Lifestyle changes are the only real solution in a lot of chronic diseases.

  33. Bollocks. Anyone who played Pandemic games by devslash0 · · Score: 1

    knows that a disease has to start on Madagascar in order to succeed.

    1. Re:Bollocks. Anyone who played Pandemic games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wondered if anyone would say something like that. :D

      You're wrong, though: Greenland or Iceland is *really* where a pandemic needs to start.

  34. au courant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its quebec. a distinct lack of maple syrup was to blame.

  35. If it gets that far you send in the national guard by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the problem you're describing is mostly a man power one. We've got plenty of that if we want to put it to use. It's usually done through the military because that's the only place you can get Americans to consistently spend money. Norm Chomsky pointed this out ages ago, how the Military Industrial Complex was used to get things done that needed doing but that Americans were too cheap to pay for.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  36. I last got a flu shot in the '70`s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last (and first) time I got a flu shot, I came down with the flu a month or so later. The shot is, what?, 30% to 60% effective? In other words 50:50. So, why bother - unless your health (or age) increases the risks to the extent to justify it. Driving to a clinic entails both costs and risks - 35,000+ people die on the roads each year (in the USA) and there are 5.7 million collisions.

  37. Re:Please let it... by DanDD · · Score: 1

    Howdy from the midwest. I share your "Fuck you!", and pledge my support wherever you may be.

    --
    "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
  38. "Editor" David by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "there's now safeguards"

    What ever happened to pride in one's profession?

    1. Re:"Editor" David by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What ever happened to pride in one's profession?

      You must be new here.

  39. Re:Show how Wakefield's article was wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is more famous than you. So Trump is smarter than you...

    I don't think that's how it works. The people you are talking about seem likely to be 'even less famous' than Trump.

  40. NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Colds and flu are completely different.

    1. Re:NO by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Colds and flu are completely different.

      Only if you have adequate diagnostic skills.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  41. Re:Probably not bad for mother nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be best for global warming if it's Americans, Canadians and Australians who die off by the 10's of millions, The planet will thank them.

  42. we could be so lucky by Hugh+Jorgen · · Score: 1

    We have a serious problem with overpopulation taxing resources. We could lose a few billion and other than the stench, would be better off.

    1. Re:we could be so lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You willing to volunteer?

    2. Re: we could be so lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as it was blacks, spics and gooks.

  43. Re:Flu shots won't work by willy_me · · Score: 1

    Why are you limited to only one virus? When one contracts a flu their immune system is compromised. This invites all sorts of other problems that would have normally been avoided. So even if the flu shot does not cover a specific virus, it can still assist you should you come in contact with said virus and want to recover quickly.

  44. Re:Flu shots won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty hard to catch the flu when you never leave your basement.

  45. terminating the flu by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    IV vitamin C remains in the "memory hole" category with "standard medicine" despite decades of successful use, off screen, or off label
    New Zealand, 60 minutes
    Riordan Clinic
    Most people only use injectable vitamin C to provide an initial improvement with 1-2 infusions, rather than reliably pump it down with 2-3 days of infusions, 3x per day at 0.7-1.1 grams per kg of body weight per infusion.

    Likewise, higher dosages of vitamin D3 both improve initial resistance AND modulate or ameliorate things like cytokine storm.
    see also www.vitaminDwiki.com

    1. Re:terminating the flu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There isn't a lot of evidence to support Linus Pauling's vitamin C theory. And there is mounting evidence to suggest that an excess of vitamin C causes more problems than it solves.

  46. Re:Yes, I Got My Flu Shot. But Will It Work? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Too often, that is the wrong variety for the pending influenza season.

    Actually the flu shot is usually spot on for the most at risk variety of influenza of the season. That you still get the flu is a realisation that there are many variants of the flu out there and going around. Only the most widespread are targeted which makes you immune to about 40-60% of the strains out there.

    That said 2017-2018 they did get it wrong. The WHO listed it as 10% effective partially due to targeted strain mutating between the hemispheres. But one bad year is a far cry from "too often". It's actually quite a successful program on the grand scheme of things.

  47. For some people the flu shot is not a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Years ago our company provided free flu shots and one of my colleagues responded allergic to it and ended up in critical condition in hospital for weeks. He never fully recovered but is able to work again.
    Would be nice to know up front if you are at risk for such a reaction before getting the flu shot.

    1. Re:For some people the flu shot is not a good idea by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 1

      Yeah, an AC with a buddy who nearly died.

      Right

      Names dates and records or you're a liar. We really don't need this kind of anti-vax bullshit here.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
    2. Re:For some people the flu shot is not a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most common allergic reaction to the flu shot is in people who are allergic to eggs, because the normal method of producing the vaccine is in eggs. That has been less common in recent years due to changes in the production process, and egg allergies are normally not life-threatening. If you've been working with a doctor for some years, you should know what your major allergies are, and most of them don't apply to flu shots.

  48. Re: Please let it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Red states, fuck you

  49. Re:Show how Wakefield's article was wrong by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Wakefield says this, and my doctor says that, and how can I decide who is right?

    Doctors aren't infallible, but on medical matters they're probably the go-to people.

    Your doctor is a doctor. Andrew Wakefield isn't.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  50. Re: Please let it... by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

    It is unfortunate that western NY is in the same state as the rest of NY.

    Maybe NY and PA could negotiate a land swap deal. Exchange eastern PA for western NY.

  51. Unfit for military service? by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    What does unfit for military service even mean? This sounds like some excuse offered to a draft board to get excused?

    "Sir, I am unable to do 5 chin-ups/pull-ups/whatever-kind-of-qualifying-callisthenic-to-qualify-for-military-service." "Too bad, son, you will have to stay home and wallow in shame to not be at the front with your friends, living out your natural lifespan with your limbs intact."

    1. Re:Unfit for military service? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      Unfit for military service means that a person is so unhealthy that even with exercise and high-quality nourishment, they cannot recover to the point of being fit enough for active service. This often means for things like malnutrition resulting in rickets, severe scurvy, beriberi, pellagra, osteoporosis, etc..

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  52. Sure. People die all the time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure. People die all the time. Flu is always changing to get around immunities and drugs.

    I feel for the people who are forced to be in large crowds. For the rest of us, there is Amazon Pantry and other food delivery services, assuming you don't have to physically go into work. Some of my family can't stand to be indoors more than 1 day. They have to go, go, go, go. That isn't me.

    I've been working from home over a decade now. Some weeks, I barely step outside to get the mail at the street.

  53. Y'all scare me; you need to be red-pilled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the USA we have right to decide if we want medicine or not. Y'all sound like you want to force the Flu Vaccine on EVERYONE.
    Personally, I do not trust Big Pharma. I had the flu shot once, and it made me ill. I'll never get another one. Not to mention the
    risks from adjuvants.

    Red pill yourselves people!

  54. Re: Why don't doctor get it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Stop lying when lives are at stake. Medical professionals in the US are required to get the flu shots. It's not true only a small amount of them get it - 100% gets it

  55. Re:Why don't doctor get it? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    For the benefit of us all, please keep nit taking flu shots. We want the future to be free from your influence.

  56. Re:Yes, I Got My Flu Shot. But Will It Work? by evenmoreconfused · · Score: 1

    The kids didn't die before -- they just got the flu. I would guess that they hope they won't die this year either.

    I understand their point to be that the kids who didn't get the shot (the parents can opt out) turned out to be, in general, no worse off than those who did.

       

    --
    No. Well...maybe. Actually, yes. It really just depends.
  57. Re: Please let it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe NY and PA could negotiate a land swap deal. Exchange eastern PA for western NY.

    One of the rare swaps where both sides lose...

  58. 1 in 30 = 3% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FTFA:
    >> "As many as 50 million died, or one out of every 30 human beings on the planet,"

    I always hate when journalists start mixing apples and oranges by taking statistics and generalizing them in a "1 in X chance". DAMMIT! Don't say "That's a one out of 30 chance" and just say "As many as 50 million died, or about 3% of the human population at the time".

  59. Re: Why don't doctor get it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He said highly trained...so instead of looking at the nurses, doctors and staff at hospitals, go look at how many researchers at places like AstraZeneca, CSL, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur, Seqirus, etc. actually get "flu shots" (in quotes to indicate what the average person gets). But hey, don't let a $1.5+B flu shot market let you think all those "get your flu shot" marketing campaigns are wrong, just make sure your vaccine is labeled as appropriate for sheeple.

  60. That's not what made the 1918 flu so deadly by Solandri · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Spanish Flu caused a cytokine storm. Basically caused your immune system to overreact, and kill yourself. Consequently, people with strong immune systems - fit and healthy young adults - were the most likely to die from it. Contrast this to modern examples of the flu which mostly picks off children and the elderly.

    If the population today is generally healthier than in 1918, something like the Spanish Flu would be even more deadly today than it was then. (Though to be fair, we don't have a World War going on forcing people into tight quarters and to move around the world, spreading the virus.)

  61. I don't get the shot, and it was always free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My employer paid for them, and I used to get them. I noticed that I feel under the weather for a couple days after getting one. Not like flu sick, but not great. like muscle achy everywhere and fatigued. I also noticed the only times I became massively sick with a flu was on years I got the shot. The shots never seem to be effective for me. I am 40 years old, so have been exposed to many strains already and been tremendously sick numerous times. The flu sucks and if there weren't so many variations of virii that cause it I would definitely get the shot. If you don't have side effects from the shot, get it. If you do, then don't. I can't know that priming my immune cells for the variants in the shots I took helped me later on or not. It might have.

  62. Shots aren't the issue by rainer_d · · Score: 1

    As I understand it, the danger lies in a virus that doesn't care if you had shots or not.
    The Spanish Flu was an avian flu. To develop the shots, the labs have to make a guess at which one of the various stems is going to be the most prevalent for that season and then start producing the shots. That takes a couple of weeks or months (seems like it's weeks these days).
    If a very aggressive strain would spread before anyone could develop something to counter it, it would spread uncontrolled - we'd have a pandemic.
    Even if it had "only" 10% mortality, life as we know it would come to a halt. The Katrina-aftermath would look like a peaceful picnic in comparison.
    There's the 2011 film "Contagion" with Matt Daemon that apparently depicts reality quite well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    I have never had a flu shot in my life.

    --
    Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
  63. Think big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets aim for 500 000 000.

  64. No lies: evidence by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Stop lying when lives are at stake. Medical professionals in the US are required to get the flu shots. It's not true only a small amount of them get it - 100% gets it

    Sorry, but I'm not the one spreading lies. The vaccination rate among medical professionals in the US is high but well short of 100% according to this article. Furthermore when not mandated the article states that the rate drops to 45%.

    In Canada it seems the rates have increased somewhat in recent years but still around half do not get vaccinated as this, very pro-flu vaccine article states. In BC making it mandatory has increased rates of vaccination to 80% but that's avoiding the point.

    If the only way you can get medical professionals to have flu vaccinations is to force them to it raises very serious questions about how medically valuable this vaccination is. Trying to cast doctors as uncaring, as the Alberta article does, has not been my experience, Generally, they seem to just disagree that the shots are worth it due to the rapid-evolving, unpredictable nature of the virus. The recommendation I have always received is that when you get elderly it is worth it but for a normal, healthy adult the benefit is minimal.

    1. Re:No lies: evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The recommendation I have always received is that when you get elderly it is worth it but for a normal, healthy adult the benefit is minimal.

      There are two different motivations for getting the flu vaccination. The first is to protect yourself against the flu - and for that, yes, it's worthwhile if you're elderly, but not if you're a healthy adult. The second is to make it less likely that you'll catch a mild case of the flu and pass it on to others. For that purpose, it's worthwhile for healthy adults (like doctors) who are likely to come into contact with the elderly, immunosuppressed patients, etc.

    2. Re:No lies: evidence by mlyle · · Score: 2

      This. Actually, at this point multiple studies have found that you save more elderly lives from the flu by giving children and young adult flu shots. The elderly get a benefit from flu shots-- but they make a weaker immune response from it than the young. The herd immunity effects from the flu shot are more significant for the old than the direct response.

    3. Re:No lies: evidence by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      For that purpose, it's worthwhile for healthy adults (like doctors) who are likely to come into contact with the elderly, immunosuppressed patients, etc.

      Yet the evidence shows that, unless they are forced to, about half of medical professionals will not get the flu shot and the main reason suggested by this study is that they remain unconvinced by the effectiveness of the vaccine. I'm not aware of any other common vaccines have this sort of credibility problem amongst health professionals so, if flu vaccines really are effective why is there such a problem convincing those who know the most about medicine of this?

    4. Re:No lies: evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is well known that doctors are the worst patients. "Do what I say not what I do" seem to fit the way doctors think. Another example is that they often try to ignore medical checklists before operations even though those are shown to reduce negative outcomes.

  65. yes, it really works by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    This is not "Linus Pauling's [oral] vitamin C theory". The IV anti-viral procedure and results precede Pauling's arrival and advocacy of oral treatments by at least two decades. Pauling was introduced to vitamin C treatment in 1966 and his advocacy began in the late 1960s. It is a hammer and tongs salvage therapy that is the strongest general anti-viral treatment available.

    IV vitamin C therapy has been embargoed by MSM for decades. Only a relative few have direct experience and/or technical background to blow through the lies and ignorance. It is a great tragedy for anyone that died or was damaged by acute viral disease.

    See also
    Injectable Vitamin C and the Treatments of Viral and Other Diseases by Robert McCracken Ph.D.; and
    Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins: Curing the Incurable, by Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D

  66. Watch "Contagion" by rbrander · · Score: 1

    Flu pandemic is one of the three "not ridiculously unlikely" emergencies our building picked for its "Emergency Preparedness" considerations. Basically, if something has a 1% chance per year of happening or better, then we'd include it. That came down to major earthquake, 100-year storm, and this, all of which can disrupt basic services and even food supply.

    The movie "Contagion" shows a fairly realistic depiction of how such a pandemic could go, and food supplies do run short at one point, the army is handing out MREs, and not enough everywhere.

    When I took training for it at work (running a water treatment plant) years back, they point out that it isn't about that many dying, or even that many being sick: it's how many people are home with sick kids and other relatives, how many SAY they are because they're terrified to leave the house. So we trained up all the office staff to be able to (basically, with supervision) run the plant so that even if we were at 25% (plant-experienced) staffing, we could keep the water on. Electrical and gas utilities have similar strategies. Grocery chains and private trucking companies do not, to my knowledge.

  67. Adults' or childrens' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can get the adult flu vaccine for a few dollars almost everywhere. The children's vaccine is very difficult to get except at your doctor's office, and means taking kids out of school for the day (and yourself out of work too). We missed our weekend flu clinic one year (already sick ...), and this year the weekend flu clinics are only on weekdays. :/ If you're later in the season, the childrens is gone (we knew a public health nurse who got us ours when we hit 6 months, well into the season already. She only had 2-3 left.) I'm talking to you Sutter Health.

  68. John Hopkins knows what makes me vulnerable to flu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their stupid fucking flashy signs next to the highway advertising this own hospital. This stress causes flu.

  69. The damn shot gave me bursitis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn burse gave it way to high on the shoulder. Said something but it was too late... jabbed.

    3 weeks later and it is only now starting to feel better. Still only about 50% strength.

    I'll get another shot next year. In my ass cheek.

  70. Not required by markdavis · · Score: 1

    >>Stop lying when lives are at stake. Medical professionals in the US are required to get the flu shots. It's not true only a small amount of them get it - 100% gets it

    >Sorry, but I'm not the one spreading lies. The vaccination rate among medical professionals in the US is high but well short of 100%

    Where *I* live in the US, it absolutely is NOT required for healthcare workers. However, it is generally provided by the healthcare companies for its employees for free, and it is strongly encouraged. And a majority do get it. And that is probably the way it SHOULD be. In a [supposedly] free society, making something like that "required" is dubious. There are those who get quite ill from the vaccine (no, you can't get the flu from a flu vaccine, but for many their body will absolutely react to it as if it were a live invader) and there are other risks and allergies associated with any vaccine. Make no mistake- I am very "pro vaccine" (in most cases), but not to the point of taking away people's choices. Make it available. Educate. Promote. Encourage.

  71. Yes! by manlygeek · · Score: 2

    Antivaxers are not very bright. The flu is a deadly virus. It doesn't always kill but since it is constantly mutating it can become a lot more deadly all of the sudden and by the time the world realizes this is that flu, you won't be able to vaccinate the mobs quick enough. So get a flu shot every year (they are free if you have any kind of insurance and fairly low cost otherwise). It is true that even if you've been vaccinated it might not protect you from the one that kills but at least it is what you can do right now. You buy lottery tickets with a 1 in 200,000,000 shot of winning. I'd say most flu vaccines have a better chance than that at providing protection. So, get with the program!

    --
    Be More, Be Manly, The Manly Geek Ubergeek Extraordinaire Blogger: www.manlygeek.com/blog Podcaster: podcast.man
  72. Yes by Jerry · · Score: 1

    For sure.

    --

    Running with Linux for over 20 years!

  73. Statistics are rigged. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Die of lung cancer? You died of the flu. Die of pneumonia? You died of the flu. About a decade ago the flu vaccine machine wasn't selling a lot of flu vaccines. They talked to their powerful friends about this problem, and other statistics for death were lumped into the flu death statistic in order to help their scare tactics. Why? To keep the flu vaccine(which doesn't actually work--says so right on the label) raking in the money.

    "Only about 15-20 per cent of people who come down with flu-like symptoms have the influenza virus -- the other 80-85 per cent actually caught rhinovirus or other germs that are indistinguishable from the true flu without laboratory tests, which are rarely done"

    "According to the National Vital Statistics System in the U.S., for example, annual flu deaths in 2010 amounted to just 500 per year -- fewer than deaths from ulcers (2,977), hernias (1,832) and pregnancy and childbirth (825)"

    source: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/death-by-influenza_b_4661442.html

  74. This time it will be 500 000 000 plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1918 did mainly attack vulnerable races, Blacks in SA and Moari in NZ for instance, but we have done such a good job of not breeding for finesss now it will be worse. As well as many more of us.

  75. Re:Yes, I Got My Flu Shot. But Will It Work? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

    These are kids who are at risk for dying from the flu. I have a hard time believing parents would opt-out from the shots. Maybe Quebec is full of religious nutters though, I don't know.

  76. Re: Probably not bad for mother nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that , being pretty much all white, civilised and advanced, those countries will be fine.

    The muds living in their filthy hovels though will die in the millions.

  77. Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering that everything else that the modern medical industry has done to us has lowered our natural immunity to almost non-existent, I think that there is a real danger of an epidemic wiping out a significant part of the population.

  78. Old flu by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    If memory serves the 1918 flu killed so many because of dehydration.
    This strain caused massive fevers and someone who was alive the night before could be dead by morning.

  79. 80,000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please tell I'm wrong here: 80 thousand people died of flu in 2018 in US?

    I quickly searched and found, for instance, that Brazil had less than 1000 lethal cases of flu in 2017. A large part of the population is immunized yearly, though, through vaccines.

    So, is that number real for US?

  80. 15 quid in the UK by mohclips · · Score: 1

    I got mine.
    A lot of people get it for free. OAPs, Asthma sufferers etc.
    But for the rest of us it's ~15 quid. I rang my local pharmacy (Doctors in the UK only do the freebies) and they had one dose left in stock.
    So there are a lot of us willing to pay 15 quid and get it.
    I had the flu in 2012, was in bed for 3 weeks, lost 18 pounds in weight. So 15 quid seems worth it.
    Question for everyone: Who's employer pays for their flu jab? I'm sue it would be cost effective. Mine doesn't.

  81. Re:Vaccines don't work well for the flu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geez, disliking just *one* case of vaccines is as good as hating them all, huh? Somebody didn't read all the way through...

    Vaccines for Measles, Mumps, Rubella, other kinds of diseases that are deadly but slow-mutating, definitely get those, the low rates of mutation of those diseases is why the vaccines work so well. I'm saying that influenza strains are a different beast from these.

    It's still a only an educated scientific guess as to which flu strain will be dominant in any given "flu season" year (they usually pick one that's about halfway across the globe from your country), and whether they picked correctly or not determines the efficacy of that year's vaccine.