Scary reaction to flu shot in Loudoun...

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:


No need to be nasty. And personally, even after checking "facts" I wouldn't trust everything I read and hear. There is no such thing as a reliable source.


Are you even serious?


She's at least as serious as the posters who fear their children may be the one in a bazilliionth to get the flu so bad they'll die so they get them vaccinated, THEN they fear they'll be the one in a bazilliionth whose vaccinations don't take so they won't let them "mingle" with unvaccinated kids. Stupid way to face life, IMO.

Stupid is facing life without actually knowing the real numbers.

No, I take that back. Stupid is not knowing the numbers, and then mocking the people who do.

If you care to redeem yourself, why don't you report back with the consensus number of predicted infections and deaths from novel H1N1 this year, and the number of compensated injury claims for influenza vaccines in the last twenty years. Then let's compare those numbers and see where the stupidity is hiding.


Your mean tone makes all of your posts hard to read.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:


No need to be nasty. And personally, even after checking "facts" I wouldn't trust everything I read and hear. There is no such thing as a reliable source.


Are you even serious?


She's at least as serious as the posters who fear their children may be the one in a bazilliionth to get the flu so bad they'll die so they get them vaccinated, THEN they fear they'll be the one in a bazilliionth whose vaccinations don't take so they won't let them "mingle" with unvaccinated kids. Stupid way to face life, IMO.


Stupid is facing life without actually knowing the real numbers.

No, I take that back. Stupid is not knowing the numbers, and then mocking the people who do.

If you care to redeem yourself, why don't you report back with the consensus number of predicted infections and deaths from novel H1N1 this year, and the number of compensated injury claims for influenza vaccines in the last twenty years. Then let's compare those numbers and see where the stupidity is hiding.


Your mean tone makes all of your posts hard to read.

I just jumped into this one. The other posts weren't mine. But when I see someone call another poster stupid, I don't feel bad about responding in kind.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

No need to be nasty. And personally, even after checking "facts" I wouldn't trust everything I read and hear. There is no such thing as a reliable source.


Are you even serious?


She's at least as serious as the posters who fear their children may be the one in a bazilliionth to get the flu so bad they'll die so they get them vaccinated, THEN they fear they'll be the one in a bazilliionth whose vaccinations don't take so they won't let them "mingle" with unvaccinated kids. Stupid way to face life, IMO.


Stupid is facing life without actually knowing the real numbers.

No, I take that back. Stupid is not knowing the numbers, and then mocking the people who do.

If you care to redeem yourself, why don't you report back with the consensus number of predicted infections and deaths from novel H1N1 this year, and the number of compensated injury claims for influenza vaccines in the last twenty years. Then let's compare those numbers and see where the stupidity is hiding.



Your mean tone makes all of your posts hard to read.


I just jumped into this one. The other posts weren't mine. But when I see someone call another poster stupid, I don't feel bad about responding in kind.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

No need to be nasty. And personally, even after checking "facts" I wouldn't trust everything I read and hear. There is no such thing as a reliable source.


Are you even serious?


She's at least as serious as the posters who fear their children may be the one in a bazilliionth to get the flu so bad they'll die so they get them vaccinated, THEN they fear they'll be the one in a bazilliionth whose vaccinations don't take so they won't let them "mingle" with unvaccinated kids. Stupid way to face life, IMO.


Stupid is facing life without actually knowing the real numbers.

No, I take that back. Stupid is not knowing the numbers, and then mocking the people who do.

If you care to redeem yourself, why don't you report back with the consensus number of predicted infections and deaths from novel H1N1 this year, and the number of compensated injury claims for influenza vaccines in the last twenty years. Then let's compare those numbers and see where the stupidity is hiding.



Your mean tone makes all of your posts hard to read.


I just jumped into this one. The other posts weren't mine. But when I see someone call another poster stupid, I don't feel bad about responding in kind.


That's interesting, because the pro-vaccination side has been calling doubters stupid and laughable throughout this thread. How could you have missed that?????
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

No need to be nasty. And personally, even after checking "facts" I wouldn't trust everything I read and hear. There is no such thing as a reliable source.


Are you even serious?


She's at least as serious as the posters who fear their children may be the one in a bazilliionth to get the flu so bad they'll die so they get them vaccinated, THEN they fear they'll be the one in a bazilliionth whose vaccinations don't take so they won't let them "mingle" with unvaccinated kids. Stupid way to face life, IMO.


Stupid is facing life without actually knowing the real numbers.

No, I take that back. Stupid is not knowing the numbers, and then mocking the people who do.

If you care to redeem yourself, why don't you report back with the consensus number of predicted infections and deaths from novel H1N1 this year, and the number of compensated injury claims for influenza vaccines in the last twenty years. Then let's compare those numbers and see where the stupidity is hiding.



Your mean tone makes all of your posts hard to read.


I just jumped into this one. The other posts weren't mine. But when I see someone call another poster stupid, I don't feel bad about responding in kind.


That's interesting, because the pro-vaccination side has been calling doubters stupid and laughable throughout this thread. How could you have missed that?????

Because this post was toward the end of the list, this is what I commented on. I think it's enough that she used the word stupid while demonstrating that she does not know the statistical risks. Am I then required to give equal treatment to the over 100 posts on this thread? I'd like to turn the discussion toward the numbers relative risk of death from influenza vs. the risk of death or serious complication from the risk of the vaccine. If that is not worthwhile, I do not know what is.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

No need to be nasty. And personally, even after checking "facts" I wouldn't trust everything I read and hear. There is no such thing as a reliable source.


Are you even serious?


She's at least as serious as the posters who fear their children may be the one in a bazilliionth to get the flu so bad they'll die so they get them vaccinated, THEN they fear they'll be the one in a bazilliionth whose vaccinations don't take so they won't let them "mingle" with unvaccinated kids. Stupid way to face life, IMO.


Stupid is facing life without actually knowing the real numbers.

No, I take that back. Stupid is not knowing the numbers, and then mocking the people who do.

If you care to redeem yourself, why don't you report back with the consensus number of predicted infections and deaths from novel H1N1 this year, and the number of compensated injury claims for influenza vaccines in the last twenty years. Then let's compare those numbers and see where the stupidity is hiding.



Your mean tone makes all of your posts hard to read.


I just jumped into this one. The other posts weren't mine. But when I see someone call another poster stupid, I don't feel bad about responding in kind.


That's interesting, because the pro-vaccination side has been calling doubters stupid and laughable throughout this thread. How could you have missed that?????


(Fixing the broken quoting, I'll repeat)

Because this post was toward the end of the list, this is what I commented on. I think it's enough that she used the word stupid while demonstrating that she does not know the statistical risks. Am I then required to give equal treatment to the over 100 posts on this thread? I'd like to turn the discussion toward the numbers relative risk of death from influenza vs. the risk of death or serious complication from the risk of the vaccine. If that is not worthwhile, I do not know what is.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

No need to be nasty. And personally, even after checking "facts" I wouldn't trust everything I read and hear. There is no such thing as a reliable source.


Are you even serious?


She's at least as serious as the posters who fear their children may be the one in a bazilliionth to get the flu so bad they'll die so they get them vaccinated, THEN they fear they'll be the one in a bazilliionth whose vaccinations don't take so they won't let them "mingle" with unvaccinated kids. Stupid way to face life, IMO.


Stupid is facing life without actually knowing the real numbers.

No, I take that back. Stupid is not knowing the numbers, and then mocking the people who do.

If you care to redeem yourself, why don't you report back with the consensus number of predicted infections and deaths from novel H1N1 this year, and the number of compensated injury claims for influenza vaccines in the last twenty years. Then let's compare those numbers and see where the stupidity is hiding.



Your mean tone makes all of your posts hard to read.


I just jumped into this one. The other posts weren't mine. But when I see someone call another poster stupid, I don't feel bad about responding in kind.


That's interesting, because the pro-vaccination side has been calling doubters stupid and laughable throughout this thread. How could you have missed that?????


(Fixing the broken quoting, I'll repeat)

Because this post was toward the end of the list, this is what I commented on. I think it's enough that she used the word stupid while demonstrating that she does not know the statistical risks. Am I then required to give equal treatment to the over 100 posts on this thread? I'd like to turn the discussion toward the numbers relative risk of death from influenza vs. the risk of death or serious complication from the risk of the vaccine. If that is not worthwhile, I do not know what is.


the post "she" (I) was referring to was about a PP's explanation of how 'herd immunity' worked, not about the H1N1 vaccine. Please do bother reading the thread before jumping in with false assumptions.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

No need to be nasty. And personally, even after checking "facts" I wouldn't trust everything I read and hear. There is no such thing as a reliable source.


Are you even serious?


She's at least as serious as the posters who fear their children may be the one in a bazilliionth to get the flu so bad they'll die so they get them vaccinated, THEN they fear they'll be the one in a bazilliionth whose vaccinations don't take so they won't let them "mingle" with unvaccinated kids. Stupid way to face life, IMO.


Stupid is facing life without actually knowing the real numbers.

No, I take that back. Stupid is not knowing the numbers, and then mocking the people who do.

If you care to redeem yourself, why don't you report back with the consensus number of predicted infections and deaths from novel H1N1 this year, and the number of compensated injury claims for influenza vaccines in the last twenty years. Then let's compare those numbers and see where the stupidity is hiding.



Your mean tone makes all of your posts hard to read.


I just jumped into this one. The other posts weren't mine. But when I see someone call another poster stupid, I don't feel bad about responding in kind.


That's interesting, because the pro-vaccination side has been calling doubters stupid and laughable throughout this thread. How could you have missed that?????


(Fixing the broken quoting, I'll repeat)

Because this post was toward the end of the list, this is what I commented on. I think it's enough that she used the word stupid while demonstrating that she does not know the statistical risks. Am I then required to give equal treatment to the over 100 posts on this thread? I'd like to turn the discussion toward the numbers relative risk of death from influenza vs. the risk of death or serious complication from the risk of the vaccine. If that is not worthwhile, I do not know what is.


the post "she" (I) was referring to was about a PP's explanation of how 'herd immunity' worked, not about the H1N1 vaccine. Please do bother reading the thread before jumping in with false assumptions.


Well, if you had a good point, you muddied it by showing ignorance of the risk of dying from influenza. It is as likely right now as dying in a car accident. I bet you still buckle your children into their car seats, though.
Anonymous
"Well, if you had a good point, you muddied it by showing ignorance of the risk of dying from influenza. It is as likely right now as dying in a car accident. I bet you still buckle your children into their car seats, though."

Not the poster you are quoting, but this is not exactly the same thing. Not putting my child in a car is not practical. I have to go to work, and we can't afford a nanny, so she goes to daycare. I have to take her to the pediatrician when she gets sick, etc. Not to mention I don't think it would it be healthy to lock a child in a house for life.

She doesn't HAVE to get the flu. If I can prevent her from getting it or lower her odds of getting it I will. When I compare the risks of her getting the flu with the risk of her having a bad reaction to the shot, the numbers favor us getting the flu shot.
Anonymous
Regarding Desiree and her reaction to whatever it was, I have a daughter who contracted Dystonia torticolis of the neck when she was on heavy meds for asthma at the age of 10. She was seen by several specialists who also were not able to decide what caused it. We took her off all meds for several years and put her on natural suppliments. She is fine now, but doctors are not all knowing and I do not believe that her situation is psychosomatic at all. This could have been the result of drug induced dystonia.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:"Well, if you had a good point, you muddied it by showing ignorance of the risk of dying from influenza. It is as likely right now as dying in a car accident. I bet you still buckle your children into their car seats, though."

Not the poster you are quoting, but this is not exactly the same thing. Not putting my child in a car is not practical. I have to go to work, and we can't afford a nanny, so she goes to daycare. I have to take her to the pediatrician when she gets sick, etc. Not to mention I don't think it would it be healthy to lock a child in a house for life.

She doesn't HAVE to get the flu. If I can prevent her from getting it or lower her odds of getting it I will. When I compare the risks of her getting the flu with the risk of her having a bad reaction to the shot, the numbers favor us getting the flu shot.


I don't disagree with any of that. I do not think it was my point to disagree with that logic. My disagreement is with the poster's estimate that the risk of death from influenza is so small. That is misleading and I think leads other people to believe that it is OK to do nothing to protect themselves. The risk this year to young adults and children is about as great as the risk of dying in a car accident. We take precautions there because we consider that risk small but worthy of concern. So we buy car seats and put airbags in our cars and set speed limits. Statistically, skipping the vaccine is as risky as ditching the car seat when you put your children in the car.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:"Well, if you had a good point, you muddied it by showing ignorance of the risk of dying from influenza. It is as likely right now as dying in a car accident. I bet you still buckle your children into their car seats, though."

Not the poster you are quoting, but this is not exactly the same thing. Not putting my child in a car is not practical. I have to go to work, and we can't afford a nanny, so she goes to daycare. I have to take her to the pediatrician when she gets sick, etc. Not to mention I don't think it would it be healthy to lock a child in a house for life.

She doesn't HAVE to get the flu. If I can prevent her from getting it or lower her odds of getting it I will. When I compare the risks of her getting the flu with the risk of her having a bad reaction to the shot, the numbers favor us getting the flu shot.


I don't disagree with any of that. I do not think it was my point to disagree with that logic. My disagreement is with the poster's estimate that the risk of death from influenza is so small. That is misleading and I think leads other people to believe that it is OK to do nothing to protect themselves. The risk this year to young adults and children is about as great as the risk of dying in a car accident. We take precautions there because we consider that risk small but worthy of concern. So we buy car seats and put airbags in our cars and set speed limits. Statistically, skipping the vaccine is as risky as ditching the car seat when you put your children in the car.


Oh, I misunderstood, thanks for the clarification. I thought you were saying the risk of flu death is low so why risk the shot. I agree we do everything we can as parents, within in reason, to protect our children, and I believe the flu shot is well within reason.

I understand that the risk of flu death is low, and if I was scared of the vaccine, I wouldn't get it, I'd be willing to take that risk for my child. But because I do not think the vaccine is risky (I understand there is some risk, I am just okay with the "one in a million" odds) I'm choosing to do the flu shot to protect her from not only the slight possibility of death and/or hospitalization, but a few weeks of misery as well.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:"Well, if you had a good point, you muddied it by showing ignorance of the risk of dying from influenza. It is as likely right now as dying in a car accident. I bet you still buckle your children into their car seats, though."

Not the poster you are quoting, but this is not exactly the same thing. Not putting my child in a car is not practical. I have to go to work, and we can't afford a nanny, so she goes to daycare. I have to take her to the pediatrician when she gets sick, etc. Not to mention I don't think it would it be healthy to lock a child in a house for life.

She doesn't HAVE to get the flu. If I can prevent her from getting it or lower her odds of getting it I will. When I compare the risks of her getting the flu with the risk of her having a bad reaction to the shot, the numbers favor us getting the flu shot.


I don't disagree with any of that. I do not think it was my point to disagree with that logic. My disagreement is with the poster's estimate that the risk of death from influenza is so small. That is misleading and I think leads other people to believe that it is OK to do nothing to protect themselves. The risk this year to young adults and children is about as great as the risk of dying in a car accident. We take precautions there because we consider that risk small but worthy of concern. So we buy car seats and put airbags in our cars and set speed limits. Statistically, skipping the vaccine is as risky as ditching the car seat when you put your children in the car.



This is from a Washington Post article; the link was in another H1N1 thread. The risk of dying is very, very low.

"Although it remains unclear how frequently the virus makes people seriously ill, recent reports from Mexico, Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand indicate that perhaps 1 percent of patients who get infected require hospitalization. Between 12 to 30 percent of those hospitalized need intensive care, and 15 to 40 percent of those in intensive care die."
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:"Well, if you had a good point, you muddied it by showing ignorance of the risk of dying from influenza. It is as likely right now as dying in a car accident. I bet you still buckle your children into their car seats, though."

Not the poster you are quoting, but this is not exactly the same thing. Not putting my child in a car is not practical. I have to go to work, and we can't afford a nanny, so she goes to daycare. I have to take her to the pediatrician when she gets sick, etc. Not to mention I don't think it would it be healthy to lock a child in a house for life.

She doesn't HAVE to get the flu. If I can prevent her from getting it or lower her odds of getting it I will. When I compare the risks of her getting the flu with the risk of her having a bad reaction to the shot, the numbers favor us getting the flu shot.


I don't disagree with any of that. I do not think it was my point to disagree with that logic. My disagreement is with the poster's estimate that the risk of death from influenza is so small. That is misleading and I think leads other people to believe that it is OK to do nothing to protect themselves. The risk this year to young adults and children is about as great as the risk of dying in a car accident. We take precautions there because we consider that risk small but worthy of concern. So we buy car seats and put airbags in our cars and set speed limits. Statistically, skipping the vaccine is as risky as ditching the car seat when you put your children in the car.



This is from a Washington Post article; the link was in another H1N1 thread. The risk of dying is very, very low.

"Although it remains unclear how frequently the virus makes people seriously ill, recent reports from Mexico, Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand indicate that perhaps 1 percent of patients who get infected require hospitalization. Between 12 to 30 percent of those hospitalized need intensive care, and 15 to 40 percent of those in intensive care die."


Let's put numbers on this. The average number of people who die from influenza every year is right around 36,000. The estimates for the number who will die from H1N1 are 30,000 to 90,000. The low end is perfectly reasonable based on the seasonal influenza average. The difference between H1N1 is that it is going to kill young adults and children instead of the elderly.

The average number of people who die in car accidents each year in the U.S. is around 40,000.

The number of people who die in a given year from diabetes is around 70,000.

So you decide whether that's enough risk to take precautions. Do you buckle your child into a car seat? Do you try to eat right? If so, why? Of course you do, because you don't want your child to have diabetes or die in a car accident. The good news is that you can dramatically reduce your odds of dying from getting the shot.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:"Well, if you had a good point, you muddied it by showing ignorance of the risk of dying from influenza. It is as likely right now as dying in a car accident. I bet you still buckle your children into their car seats, though."

Not the poster you are quoting, but this is not exactly the same thing. Not putting my child in a car is not practical. I have to go to work, and we can't afford a nanny, so she goes to daycare. I have to take her to the pediatrician when she gets sick, etc. Not to mention I don't think it would it be healthy to lock a child in a house for life.

She doesn't HAVE to get the flu. If I can prevent her from getting it or lower her odds of getting it I will. When I compare the risks of her getting the flu with the risk of her having a bad reaction to the shot, the numbers favor us getting the flu shot.


I don't disagree with any of that. I do not think it was my point to disagree with that logic. My disagreement is with the poster's estimate that the risk of death from influenza is so small. That is misleading and I think leads other people to believe that it is OK to do nothing to protect themselves. The risk this year to young adults and children is about as great as the risk of dying in a car accident. We take precautions there because we consider that risk small but worthy of concern. So we buy car seats and put airbags in our cars and set speed limits. Statistically, skipping the vaccine is as risky as ditching the car seat when you put your children in the car.



This is from a Washington Post article; the link was in another H1N1 thread. The risk of dying is very, very low.

"Although it remains unclear how frequently the virus makes people seriously ill, recent reports from Mexico, Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand indicate that perhaps 1 percent of patients who get infected require hospitalization. Between 12 to 30 percent of those hospitalized need intensive care, and 15 to 40 percent of those in intensive care die."


Let's put numbers on this. The average number of people who die from influenza every year is right around 36,000. The estimates for the number who will die from H1N1 are 30,000 to 90,000. The low end is perfectly reasonable based on the seasonal influenza average. The difference between H1N1 is that it is going to kill young adults and children instead of the elderly.

The average number of people who die in car accidents each year in the U.S. is around 40,000.

The number of people who die in a given year from diabetes is around 70,000.

So you decide whether that's enough risk to take precautions. Do you buckle your child into a car seat? Do you try to eat right? If so, why? Of course you do, because you don't want your child to have diabetes or die in a car accident. The good news is that you can dramatically reduce your odds of dying from getting the shot.


Not everyone will get the virus. Of those who do, 15 to 40 percent of 12 to 30 percent of one percent will die. So way, way, way less than 1 percent of those who get sick enough to go to the hospital will die. That's a very, very, very, very low percentage, no matter how you slice it. (The chances of your child dying from H1N1 are way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way less than 1 percent.)
Forum Index » Infants, Toddlers, & Preschoolers
Go to: