[PublicAnimalNo9]

For those here that think governments have OUR best health interests at heart and would NEVER allow ANYONE to sell us someting useless or bad for us, let's get some perspective on things.

So far this year in Canada, smoking related deaths-37,000 not counting second hand smoke related deaths.
Deaths known to be caused by H1N1 worldwide this year as of today-5,938.
89 of which were in Canada.

That's 6 times more Canadians dying from smoking than have died worldwide from swine flu this year so far.

Yep our government sure cares about our health
Now I suppose someone will try to tell me there's nothing "funny" going on there either and how I don't understand mortality rates

[Saffron]

Segno...I have a question for you. I am a community health nurse, and I've done the very same dance on multiple boards with a legion of anti-vaxers. I've given up. If people don't want to get the vaccine, it's entirely within their rights. I've argued until I'm blue in the face, and it's much like banging my head against a brick wall. If they want to take their chances, then by all means, let them. Why subject yourself to this?

[Annihilator]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

For those here that think governments have OUR best health interests at heart and would NEVER allow ANYONE to sell us someting useless or bad for us, let's get some perspective on things.

So far this year in Canada, smoking related deaths-37,000 not counting second hand smoke related deaths.
Deaths known to be caused by H1N1 worldwide this year as of today-5,938.
89 of which were in Canada.

That's 6 times more Canadians dying from smoking than have died worldwide from swine flu this year so far.

Yep our government sure cares about our health
Now I suppose someone will try to tell me there's nothing "funny" going on there either and how I don't understand mortality rates

Smoking is only legal because it has always been. They just couldn't put this industry out of business even if they wanted. There is no equivalency between this situation and vaccines. Just let the people that actually know something about medecine and flu shots, doctors, do their job.

[Brenda]

Which is ok. But going to the doctor is a voluntary thing. I, for one, don't visit a doctors office for a cold. LOTS of people do. Hell, they even fill up ER's for a sore throat. You might think that is a good thing, but I don't think so.

So please, let me make my own choices without being called stupid. Thank you.

[raydan]

Saffron Saffron:

Segno...I have a question for you. I am a community health nurse, and I've done the very same dance on multiple boards with a legion of anti-vaxers. I've given up. If people don't want to get the vaccine, it's entirely within their rights. I've argued until I'm blue in the face, and it's much like banging my head against a brick wall. If they want to take their chances, then by all means, let them. Why subject yourself to this?

Best post in a while on this subject.
I'm one of the people not getting the vaccine.

The panic has started.
Police had to be called in yesterday when the clinic close to where I live ran out of the vaccine and a lot of people were left outside waiting for their shot.
Emergency rooms are filling up with people that have "flu-like" symptoms and only about 1 tenth of those people actually require medical attention.

[raydan]

To be jabbed or not
There some some pros and cons to vaccination in the article.

[segno]

Saffron Saffron:

Segno...I have a question for you. I am a community health nurse, and I've done the very same dance on multiple boards with a legion of anti-vaxers. I've given up. If people don't want to get the vaccine, it's entirely within their rights. I've argued until I'm blue in the face, and it's much like banging my head against a brick wall. If they want to take their chances, then by all means, let them. Why subject yourself to this?

Good question...

Two possible reasons for this:

I do recognize that hardcore anti-vaxers are, for the most part, incapable of the type of critical thinking that's needed, and will probably never be convinced. They will post their incorrect "facts", and when those facts are shown to be wrong, they'll throw something else out there.

However, pro- and anti-vaxers are not necessarily the only ones reading these forums. There is a chance that there are some people who may actually have the ability to think reasonably and logically, but just haven't been able to cut through all of the conflicting information to decide whether its the correct thing to do. If such a person sees a false claim made by an anti-vaxer (OMG! Horrible side effects! Ineffective! The sky will collapse!) without someone pointing out the correct information (testing done, minimal side effects, lives saved), they may make the incorrect decision.

Hey, its actually happened before where someone has 'beliefs' that were unsupported by science and become more of a skeptic/critical thinker... with me. Not with vaccinations, but with other forms of woo.

Guess the other reason is that I enjoy a good on-line debate. Of course, people like publicanimal isn't competent enough to provide one, but I also post on some skeptics forums, which is a great place to hang out; however, its kind of hard to have a good debate on something like vaccination there because critical thinkers all tend to think the vaccine is a good idea.

[Brenda]

$1:

because critical thinkers all tend to think the vaccine is a good idea.

So a critical thinker is only a good thinker when he agrees with you?

[raydan]

segno segno:

Saffron Saffron:

Segno...I have a question for you. I am a community health nurse, and I've done the very same dance on multiple boards with a legion of anti-vaxers. I've given up. If people don't want to get the vaccine, it's entirely within their rights. I've argued until I'm blue in the face, and it's much like banging my head against a brick wall. If they want to take their chances, then by all means, let them. Why subject yourself to this?

Good question...

Two possible reasons for this:

I do recognize that hardcore anti-vaxers are, for the most part, incapable of the type of critical thinking that's needed, and will probably never be convinced. They will post their incorrect "facts", and when those facts are shown to be wrong, they'll throw something else out there.

However, pro- and anti-vaxers are not necessarily the only ones reading these forums. There is a chance that there are some people who may actually have the ability to think reasonably and logically, but just haven't been able to cut through all of the conflicting information to decide whether its the correct thing to do. If such a person sees a false claim made by an anti-vaxer (OMG! Horrible side effects! Ineffective! The sky will collapse!) without someone pointing out the correct information (testing done, minimal side effects, lives saved), they may make the incorrect decision.

Hey, its actually happened before where someone has 'beliefs' that were unsupported by science and become more of a skeptic/critical thinker... with me. Not with vaccinations, but with other forms of woo.

Guess the other reason is that I enjoy a good on-line debate. Of course, people like publicanimal isn't competent enough to provide one, but I also post on some skeptics forums, which is a great place to hang out; however, its kind of hard to have a good debate on something like vaccination there because critical thinkers all tend to think the vaccine is a good idea.

From best post to worst post.

[raydan]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

because critical thinkers all tend to think the vaccine is a good idea.

So a critical thinker is only a good thinker when he agrees with you?

Gotta love the attitude...

All those that disagree with me are idiots.

[segno]

raydan raydan:

To be jabbed or not
There some some pros and cons to vaccination in the article.

Although this article is an OK summary of some of the issues surrounding vaccinations, it contains one glaring error.

Dr. Jim Wright at the University of British Columbia says he would be willing to take the vaccine — but only if it was part of a trial. We haven't seen the last of the swine flu, he says, and if we don't test the effectiveness of this vaccine, we'll be mired in the same vaccination debate each year. "If we don't do a trial, then next year in September or October everyone will be wondering again if they should take the vaccine. My criticism of this vaccine is the same as my criticism of other flu vaccines.


If this Dr. Wright is claiming that they haven't done double-blind studies to test the effectiveness of "other flu vaccines", then he is wrong.

Here are some double-blind studies from previous years:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/ab ... 84/13/1655
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 0ba0316a51

It is true that they usually have to make the flu vaccine available to the public before they can do double-blind studies on actual illness prevention, but its false to suggest that such studies never get done.

[Proculation]

Unbelievable... it's like talking to deaf people.

You know, we went on the moon too btw...

[Akhenaten]

$1:

I do recognize that hardcore anti-vaxers are, for the most part, incapable of the type of critical thinking that's needed,

Balh blah blah....you're already proven you can't read properly so why not just stop pretending you're intelligent, ok?

[Proculation]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

because critical thinkers all tend to think the vaccine is a good idea.

So a critical thinker is only a good thinker when he agrees with you?

"Getting the vaccine = a good idea" is not a opinion, it's a fact. 1+1 = 2, not 3

[Brenda]

Proculation Proculation:

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

because critical thinkers all tend to think the vaccine is a good idea.

So a critical thinker is only a good thinker when he agrees with you?

"Getting the vaccine = a good idea" is not a opinion, it's a fact. 1+1 = 2, not 3

What does that have to do with "critical thinking"?
This is not about the outcome of your thinking, this is about the thought you give it. According to Segno, the result is what makes you a critical thinker.

I don't think so!