This season's flu is no joke - PSA for anyone whose kids have not had a shot yet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12 yo just had it and it was probably the sickest I've seen him since he was v young, and he had had the shot. I dont know what it would have been like without it. His ped does not do tamiflu but in retrospect i would have pushed for it. One night was esp troublesome.

This infuriates me. Our entire family just had Flu A and Tamiflu was a freaking godsend for the 3 of us who took it. However, like you, our pedi would ‘t give it to our son because “research shows it only shortens the flu by 12 hours and he might get a tummy ache”. Wtf! It literally stopped the virus in its tracks for the rest of us. Poor DS had it so rough and it could have been prevented. He had a positive PCR within 12 hours of symptoms starting. It was the perfect to give him Tamiflu. That said, I highly recommend asking for the pills if your kids can swallow them. Much easier to take (and much easier on the stomach) than the liquid.

+1. In my own personal experience, when taken that early, it stops the flu in its tracks. I’ve never seen anyone get over the flu naturally in 3 days, and yet my kid was fully recovered within 24 hours of starting tamiflu - 36 hours after symptoms started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes let myself think the DCUM set is more intelligent than average, but then a thread like this brings me back to reality. Get your flu shot every year. Even a poorly matched shot offers protection. This isn’t new information.

You do realize there is scant evidence for the flu shot’s effectiveness right? There is little statistical or anecdotal evidence despite this thing being given to hundreds of millions of people over 45 years.

It’s only people like you still supporting it. People who are particularly susceptible to marketing and think themselves smarter than they actually are. If they couldn’t advertise the shot anymore, people like you would never take it again.

Even a quick Google search pulls up any number of peer reviewed studies that show you're full of something. Hint: it's not knowledge.

In the realm of vaccines, the flu shot is not very effective.

But it's better than nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes let myself think the DCUM set is more intelligent than average, but then a thread like this brings me back to reality. Get your flu shot every year. Even a poorly matched shot offers protection. This isn’t new information.

You do realize there is scant evidence for the flu shot’s effectiveness right? There is little statistical or anecdotal evidence despite this thing being given to hundreds of millions of people over 45 years.

It’s only people like you still supporting it. People who are particularly susceptible to marketing and think themselves smarter than they actually are. If they couldn’t advertise the shot anymore, people like you would never take it again.

The evidence is that the unvaccinated die of the flu more often than the unvaccinated. By an order of magnitude, every single year.

Most people do not die of the flu. But most people who do die of the flu were not expecting to die of the flu. And not everyone was on death’s door.

Crazy thing is, that there isn’t data on this. You just can’t see how many people in each category died of the flu each year.

If you doubt it, pick a year and tell us how many people died of the flu after taking the vaccine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes let myself think the DCUM set is more intelligent than average, but then a thread like this brings me back to reality. Get your flu shot every year. Even a poorly matched shot offers protection. This isn’t new information.

You do realize there is scant evidence for the flu shot’s effectiveness right? There is little statistical or anecdotal evidence despite this thing being given to hundreds of millions of people over 45 years.

It’s only people like you still supporting it. People who are particularly susceptible to marketing and think themselves smarter than they actually are. If they couldn’t advertise the shot anymore, people like you would never take it again.

The evidence is that the unvaccinated die of the flu more often than the unvaccinated. By an order of magnitude, every single year.

Most people do not die of the flu. But most people who do die of the flu were not expecting to die of the flu. And not everyone was on death’s door.

Crazy thing is, that there isn’t data on this. You just can’t see how many people in each category died of the flu each year.

If you doubt it, pick a year and tell us how many people died of the flu after taking the vaccine.

The problem is, the raw data any given year won't be that helpful. Sicker, older, and otherwise high risk people are much more likely to get the flu vaccine than healthier populations. So to get meaningful results, you need an actual study. There are plenty of actual studies showing significant reductions in mortality the vaccine. But people are going to repeat this research every single season

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes let myself think the DCUM set is more intelligent than average, but then a thread like this brings me back to reality. Get your flu shot every year. Even a poorly matched shot offers protection. This isn’t new information.

You do realize there is scant evidence for the flu shot’s effectiveness right? There is little statistical or anecdotal evidence despite this thing being given to hundreds of millions of people over 45 years.

It’s only people like you still supporting it. People who are particularly susceptible to marketing and think themselves smarter than they actually are. If they couldn’t advertise the shot anymore, people like you would never take it again.

The evidence is that the unvaccinated die of the flu more often than the unvaccinated. By an order of magnitude, every single year.

Most people do not die of the flu. But most people who do die of the flu were not expecting to die of the flu. And not everyone was on death’s door.

Crazy thing is, that there isn’t data on this. You just can’t see how many people in each category died of the flu each year.

If you doubt it, pick a year and tell us how many people died of the flu after taking the vaccine.

The problem is, the raw data any given year won't be that helpful. Sicker, older, and otherwise high risk people are much more likely to get the flu vaccine than healthier populations. So to get meaningful results, you need an actual study. There are plenty of actual studies showing significant reductions in mortality the vaccine. But people are going to repeat this research every single season

So the vaccine is failing exactly the people that need it? Now why do they market it so hard to low risk populations?

[Anonymous]

Can you catch a mild case and then recatch a severe case within a couple weeks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you catch a mild case and then recatch a severe case within a couple weeks?

One year, my daughter tested positive for Flu A (and was really sick) and then several weeks later tested positive for Flu B (which wasn’t as severe for her as Flu A).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you catch a mild case and then recatch a severe case within a couple weeks?

One year, my daughter tested positive for Flu A (and was really sick) and then several weeks later tested positive for Flu B (which wasn’t as severe for her as Flu A).

This happened to one of my colleague’s family. They all had Flu A followed a couple of weeks later by Flu B (or maybe it was the reverse). They had all been vaccinated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The flu shot is very good at preventing hospitalization and death for kids. There’s been two pediatric deaths already, and 0-5 age group is seeing increased hospitalization.

It's this - my understanding is 80% of pediatric deaths from the flu are unvaccinated. I like the odds of getting the shot and staying off that list, so my kids and us get it every year.

[Anonymous]

My daughter is a nurse at a hospital and they now have instructions to mask up on duty and possibly off.

I feel it's not so much for their own safety as not having to have half their workforce out, though.

Supposedly a bad Flu A, complicated by the fact that the last meeting of the people who decide what to put in the flu vaccine was canceled.

Maybe they really do just want to wipe a lot of vulnerable people off any government assistance they currently have.

I have had the flu once in my memory and it made me so weak I once had to rest halfway up the stairs for a few minutes just to will myself to climb the next 5 steps.

I was truly afraid because at the time I had actual kids at home and pets to feed.

[Anonymous]

I ended up not getting the flu shot after missing the appointments when they were offering it at work. Everyone else in my family got it. Learned my lesson when I spent half of my precious New Year break sick as a dog while the rest of the family is out having fun on the slopes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes let myself think the DCUM set is more intelligent than average, but then a thread like this brings me back to reality. Get your flu shot every year. Even a poorly matched shot offers protection. This isn’t new information.

You do realize there is scant evidence for the flu shot’s effectiveness right? There is little statistical or anecdotal evidence despite this thing being given to hundreds of millions of people over 45 years.

It’s only people like you still supporting it. People who are particularly susceptible to marketing and think themselves smarter than they actually are. If they couldn’t advertise the shot anymore, people like you would never take it again.

Even a quick Google search pulls up any number of peer reviewed studies that show you're full of something. Hint: it's not knowledge.

In the realm of vaccines, the flu shot is not very effective.

But it's better than nothing.

One wonders how you define “effective” - effective in terms of preventing hospitalizations and death? Effective in terms of not being infected despite exposure? Effective in terms of turning your hair blue?
It matters.

The CDC reports that “early estimates of 2025–26 influenza vaccine effectiveness in England against influenza-associated hospitalization remained within expected ranges of 70%–75% for children and 30%–40% for adults, suggesting that influenza vaccination remains an effective tool in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations this season.”

So it’s definitely worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes let myself think the DCUM set is more intelligent than average, but then a thread like this brings me back to reality. Get your flu shot every year. Even a poorly matched shot offers protection. This isn’t new information.

You do realize there is scant evidence for the flu shot’s effectiveness right? There is little statistical or anecdotal evidence despite this thing being given to hundreds of millions of people over 45 years.

It’s only people like you still supporting it. People who are particularly susceptible to marketing and think themselves smarter than they actually are. If they couldn’t advertise the shot anymore, people like you would never take it again.

Even a quick Google search pulls up any number of peer reviewed studies that show you're full of something. Hint: it's not knowledge.

In the realm of vaccines, the flu shot is not very effective.

But it's better than nothing.

One wonders how you define “effective” - effective in terms of preventing hospitalizations and death? Effective in terms of not being infected despite exposure? Effective in terms of turning your hair blue?
It matters.

The CDC reports that “early estimates of 2025–26 influenza vaccine effectiveness in England against influenza-associated hospitalization remained within expected ranges of 70%–75% for children and 30%–40% for adults, suggesting that influenza vaccination remains an effective tool in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations this season.”

So it’s definitely worth it.

It’s always estimates and never raw numbers. One of the vaccine makers favorite tricks.

[Anonymous]

Lets say this clearly for people who seem to think vaccines are external shields, they are not. You can still get sick, if exposed. Your body is starting from more than 0, which is the fighting chance. For some vaccines, it can be 90% effective. That means 10% it won't be. For some, it's less. It's still better than starting at 0 especially when you are vulnerable, due to age or other factors. And if you are lucky enough to not be in the vulnerable category then receiving the vaccine decreases the prevalence of circulating virus which results in eradication of the virus on certain levels.

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/the-biology-of-vaccines

FFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes let myself think the DCUM set is more intelligent than average, but then a thread like this brings me back to reality. Get your flu shot every year. Even a poorly matched shot offers protection. This isn’t new information.

You do realize there is scant evidence for the flu shot’s effectiveness right? There is little statistical or anecdotal evidence despite this thing being given to hundreds of millions of people over 45 years.

It’s only people like you still supporting it. People who are particularly susceptible to marketing and think themselves smarter than they actually are. If they couldn’t advertise the shot anymore, people like you would never take it again.

Even a quick Google search pulls up any number of peer reviewed studies that show you're full of something. Hint: it's not knowledge.

In the realm of vaccines, the flu shot is not very effective.

But it's better than nothing.

One wonders how you define “effective” - effective in terms of preventing hospitalizations and death? Effective in terms of not being infected despite exposure? Effective in terms of turning your hair blue?
It matters.

The CDC reports that “early estimates of 2025–26 influenza vaccine effectiveness in England against influenza-associated hospitalization remained within expected ranges of 70%–75% for children and 30%–40% for adults, suggesting that influenza vaccination remains an effective tool in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations this season.”

So it’s definitely worth it.

It’s always estimates and never raw numbers. One of the vaccine makers favorite tricks.

Omg are you drinking the kool aid or what