« The roots of price stickiness, part II | Main | Markets in everything »
Kiss me, I'm vaccinated
I just had my flu shot. Please send your checks to my George Mason address.
People who have the flu spread the virus so getting a flu shot not only reduces the probability that I will get the flu it reduces the probability that you will get the flu. In the language of economics the flu shot creates an external benefit, a benefit to other people not captured by the person who paid the costs of getting the shot. The external benefits of a flu shot can be quite large. Under some conditions each person who is vaccinated reduces the expected number of other people who get the flu by 1.5.
Since a large fraction of the benefits of the flu shot, perhaps even a majority of the benefits, go to other people and not to the person paying the costs, the number of people who get a flu shot in the United States is well below the efficient level. I only got the shot because, as you well know, I'm altruistic. I care about you. But do send your checks, that will help.
In lieu of a check I'm thinking of having some buttons made up to encourage people to get their shot. Here are some possible slogans:
- Kiss me, I'm vaccinated.
- Take one for the herd!
- Get a flu shot. The life you save may not be your own.
Madison Avenue here I come!
Of course, we know from the Coase Theorem that there is an alternative approach. We could charge people who do not get their flu shots. (Thus, if you haven't had a shot you must still must send me a check.) Or to reduce transaction costs we could fine people who get the flu. I kind of like that last one. (But what to do about the 36,000 a year who die from the flu - charge their estates?)
What do you think? Leave your suggestions/slogans for how to encourage getting a flu shot in the comments.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on November 12, 2007 at 07:55 AM in Economics, Medicine | Permalink
Comments
>> Take one for the herd!
LOL! ;-)
Posted by: Chris Meisenzahl at Nov 12, 2007 8:09:59 AM
The people who get a flu shot will be eligible for
a million dollar lottery.
Posted by: at Nov 12, 2007 8:25:01 AM
I'd be all for it if the supply wasn't so notoriously prone to shortages. The ones who benefit most are the elderly, children, and those with compromised immune systems. So as a rule until I hear that the supply is good in a given year, I hold off.
Posted by: Sandy at Nov 12, 2007 8:35:52 AM
How about an ad that implies that people who get flu shots are more attractive to the opposite sex?
I used to get a flu shot every year. Then we went through a couple of years in which the supply was low, and I didn't make the at risk cut. Nothing bad happened -- I didn't get sick.
This year, I got a shot, and it made me a little wonky for a few hours later in the evening.
I believe the science, so I'll continue to get shots if the supply is there. I'm not going to believe my own lying eyes.
Posted by: Alex at Nov 12, 2007 8:37:17 AM
It's called herd immunity - a very good way to reduce the spread of infectious diseases.
Posted by: Ned at Nov 12, 2007 8:39:21 AM
Why take shots at all? Just drop some dead virus into the water supply with the flouride and the brain control drugs.
I know what government is really up to!
Posted by: The Invisible Man at Nov 12, 2007 8:53:41 AM
Thank you for doing your part to exacerbate (not cause, natch) vaccine shortages and speed the rate of flu variability.
If you're not elderly, young, or immune-system-compromised, there's no need to get vaccinated.
While it isn't on par with overusing antibiotics, your decision to get vaccinated is not a total "win" for those around you.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg at Nov 12, 2007 9:18:40 AM
I never got a flu shot and don't intend on getting one, because they are ineffective and even dangerous. Vaccines weaken your immune system, and they are widely abused in Western societies. I have as few as possible.
Posted by: PEG at Nov 12, 2007 9:19:12 AM
Yes! Flu vaccination should be easy and encouraged for everyone!
I'd like to hear your thoughts about why shortages of vaccine are so common. I'm sure it's All the Fault of the Government (and the FDA, right, Alex? ;-). But seriously, the two of you regularly surprise me, so I'd love to hear what you think.
Posted by: MostlyAPragmatist at Nov 12, 2007 9:20:02 AM
"We could charge people who do not get their flu shots."
You've just proposed bigger gouvernment. That must be a first.
Posted by: LemmusLemmus at Nov 12, 2007 9:21:05 AM
From Darwin's standpoint, the flu shot has negative externalities for the immunity of future generations. This is not really relevant for older people who will not have anymore kids, but certainly relevant for children who get flu shots. Though, immunity may be less relevant as we figure out how to cure more disease. Nonetheless, with respect to our "herd's" immunity, we may be getting too many flu shots and be taking too many drugs.
I think "Take one for the herd" can also be a slogan for the anti-flu shot (Darwinian) campaign. "Take one for the herd: don't get a flu shot. The weak will die off, leaving only a stronger herd." Due to its ruthlessness, I don't think this will much catch on.
Posted by: Scott W at Nov 12, 2007 9:36:40 AM
Every year, a nurse sets up shop in a conference room at my office and provides free flu shots to any who desire. Her services and the vaccinations are paid for by my employer.
I know you academia types are a little removed from the bracing will of the free market -- but isn't it obvious who's getting the extra benefits from a flu-free season for dozens of workers?
Posted by: Modest Anonymouse at Nov 12, 2007 9:39:10 AM
Would universal flu vaccination really save many lives except on a very short-term basis? If I'm not mistaken - someone please correct me if I am - most of the people who die from the flu already are in pretty bad shape, and would have died soon after even if they hadn't gotten the flu. In other words, the flu doesn't so much strike down the healthy, as push the already-dying over the edge. If you balance this against the known risks of the vaccine, universal flu vaccination might not be worthwhile.
Posted by: Peter at Nov 12, 2007 9:40:21 AM
"I've been pricked!"
Posted by: Al at Nov 12, 2007 9:51:12 AM
Are you elderly, young, or immune-system compromised?
If not, you've likely done something pretty much useless.
Well, not useless. If there's not a shortage of vaccine, they have to sell it to somebody. Admitting that they have little value for healthy people doesn't go very far in that direction.
If my employer believes that flu shots are effective, then my employer should provide them for free out of self-interest. For that matter, Humana (the company's insurance carrier) should be providing them out of self-interest.
Posted by: ZBicyclist at Nov 12, 2007 9:53:08 AM
I get the flu jab every year, as I'm young, healthy, and asthmatic. The jab is provided free by the good old National Health Service of Great Britain. Despite some of the BS propaganda aired about The NHS recently, I'm very happy to be able to receive the vaccine whether I can afford it or not. Thank you state provided healthcare. Last year I missed the vaccine, got flu and spent five days off work. Seems worth getting to me.
Posted by: Jamie at Nov 12, 2007 10:05:16 AM
Alex, it wouldn't be cool to punish people for getting the flu because the flu shot only protects against certain strains of the virus. In other words, one can still get the flu even after getting the shot.
This piece is from a long time ago but you guys might still find it relevant: Why we run out of vaccines
Posted by: Biomed Tim at Nov 12, 2007 10:38:37 AM
How about "Get a shot or get shot!"
Posted by: lee at Nov 12, 2007 10:45:36 AM
Actually my employer has provided free flu shots for 2 years now. It is the first enlightened thing I remember them doing.
Posted by: lee at Nov 12, 2007 10:51:01 AM
I got a flu shot this year but it's going to be the last one I get for a long time. I'm middle-aged and healthy, and I've been reading reports about how not-very-worthwhile flu shots are for the healthy. Having myself injected with mercury and chicken embryos isn't appealing. And in recent years I've noticed a pattern: I get a flu shot, and a week later I come down with the flu. Pretty effective!
Posted by: Michael Blowhard at Nov 12, 2007 10:55:49 AM
My wife (who is in a high risk group) gets the shot every year. She drops by the doctor and pays a $10 copay, with the other $80 odd dollars for the office visit being billed to to insurance company. Meanwhile, she could have gotten the shot for a $30 total cost at the grocery store, but the entire $30 would be our responsibility. There is probably an interesting economic discussion somewhere in there...
Personally, I never get the flu shot. I've made it age 39 and 51 weeks without ever contracting the flu. I don't see any reason to voluntarily introduce the virus to my system, even if it is dead.
Posted by: COD at Nov 12, 2007 10:57:40 AM
If only Bryan Caplan were an immunologist...The Myth of the Rational Patient: Anti-Vaccine Bias
"I don't see any reason to voluntarily introduce the virus to my system, even if it is dead."
"And in recent years I've noticed a pattern: I get a flu shot, and a week later I come down with the flu."
"Vaccines weaken your immune system, and they are widely abused in Western societies."
Posted by: Biomed Tim at Nov 12, 2007 11:17:15 AM
Actually Tim the scientific case for flu vaccination in the young and healthy is very weak. . .
Posted by: Matthew C. at Nov 12, 2007 11:39:55 AM
That line was sort of there for humor effect - but you know...
Continuing to do the same thing while expecting the same results is completely rational. It may or may not be correct, but is 100% rational.
Posted by: COD at Nov 12, 2007 11:42:55 AM
My father is a doctor so I grew up in hospitals. The one thing he never stopped telling me is how fundamentally irrational, if not out-and-out stupid, a sizeable proportion of patients tend to be. His colleagues always agreed.
The flu vaccine can't give you the flu. Full stop. It doesn't contain any live virus. However, it can provoke your immune system and give you brief "flu-like" symptoms for a short period after receiving it. This is not the flu. (FYI homeopathy, sonic crystal resonance, therapeutic touch and magnets also do not guard against the flu.)
And just because you haven't gotten the flu and haven't received a shot doesn't mean that you won't get the flu in the future.
Get the flu shot. It may or may not protect you, but it sure as hell won't hurt you.
Posted by: Mike at Nov 12, 2007 11:46:01 AM
When I look back at my two years in Peace Corps I figure the best thing I did for my village was set up and regularly treat my mosquito net. A well treated mosquito net reduced the chances of me getting malaria and it reduced the number of mosquitoes as far away as 200 meters, thereby reducing the chances of my neighbors getting malaria. It's the one public health effort I know worked.
Posted by: washcycle at Nov 12, 2007 11:51:38 AM
The commentators who argue that the benefits of the shot are low for "young and healthy" people have missed the point. What you mean is that the *private benefits* for young and healthy people are low. The benefits to other people, however, could still be quite large. Indeed, the young and healthy may be the worst spreaders.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Nov 12, 2007 12:01:57 PM
The vaccine is not completely protective - it is still possible to get influenza after being vaccinated, although it is less likely. It takes about six weeks for the post-vaccination immune response to peak, so getting the vaccine in the middle of flu season may not help too much. And while the mortality of influenza among the young and healthy is very small, the morbidity can be considerable, plus herd immunity needs to develop (if you don't understand these terms, look upon this as a learning experience).
Posted by: Ned at Nov 12, 2007 12:03:06 PM
I think this is ignoring the importance of social networks. There have been randomized studies that show that per-shot, the most useful people to vaccinate are school age children. Perhaps we need to bribe our kids to get shots instead of trying to fine the country at large for getting the flu.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5699/1123?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=flu+vaccine+shortage&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
Posted by: Sam at Nov 12, 2007 12:04:05 PM
However, it can provoke your immune system and give you brief "flu-like" symptoms for a short period after receiving it.Is it just me, or is the above a contradiction to the below?
it sure as hell won't hurt you.I mean, brief flu-like symptoms probably hurt at least a little, right?
Which is a silly argument, but a lot of folks are arguing like there are no costs to the flu shot, only benefits. But there are costs. Now, maybe the benefits are higher than the costs, but that's a different argument.
Posted by: Bob Montgomery at Nov 12, 2007 12:16:00 PM
The office building complex where I work brought in INOVA to administer flu shots to anyone who wants one in the complex for $23. My company paid for everyone in the company to get one. I signed up because as a pregnant woman I'm now a member of the high-risk group. For this reason my husband will also take advantage of his office's free flu shot offering.
My company's HR director told me that this is the last year that they will pay for flu shots in this manner. From now on they will only reimburse employees who have gotten them from their doctors, since the $10 co-pay is less than the $23 they are paying now. I suspect this will result in lower participation, and more cases of the flu within the office.
Posted by: Christina at Nov 12, 2007 12:20:25 PM
Tabarrok's wise comment bears reposting:
"The commentators who argue that the benefits of the shot are low for "young and healthy" people have missed the point. What you mean is that the *private benefits* for young and healthy people are low. The benefits to other people, however, could still be quite large. Indeed, the young and healthy may be the worst spreaders."
Posted by: Hope at Nov 12, 2007 1:01:55 PM
"Thank you state provided healthcare." It wasn't the state that provided, Jamie, it was all the tax paid by me.
Posted by: dearieme at Nov 12, 2007 1:03:29 PM
I pay plenty enough tax to cover my own healthcare thanks very much. I'm confident you weren't involved.
Posted by: Jamie at Nov 12, 2007 1:14:22 PM
"Get vaccinated: It's the only shot that'll stop Enza from flying in the window."
Yes it sucks, but it has a pun and a learned historical reference.
Posted by: Jeff H. at Nov 12, 2007 1:44:27 PM
"A team of National Institutes of Health researchers has concluded that the often-touted benefits of flu shots to people over the age of 70 are highly exaggerated - there is no real proof they provide protection to the frail elderly."
Here's the link.
Why should we believe all the super-confident claims that vaccines are perfectly safe when we apparently can't even believe that they work in the people they are supposed to help the most. If the proponents of vaccination are wrong about who is helped, they can be wrong about who might be hurt.
Posted by: anon at Nov 12, 2007 1:58:55 PM
"I took a prick so that you won't get sick."
On second thought, never mind.
Posted by: mobile at Nov 12, 2007 1:59:41 PM
So if the net cost to my employer is the cost of dealing with 1.5 cases of flu minus the cost of giving me the shot, the employer should be paying me to get the shot. Maybe there should be a "get a flu shot now, get an extra day of vacation in the spring" plan.
Posted by: Don Marti at Nov 12, 2007 2:01:46 PM
I get flu shots ever since the time all four of us had the flu at the same time. This include two young children, one of which was pre-school age. That really sucked. No, I did't die, and neither did they, but it really sucked, just the same.
I also discovered that while, as a programmer, I could go to work for most of the days when I had the flu symptoms, it wasn't actually worth it. When I later looked at the work I had done while sick, I discovered that it was basically worthless. Full of holes and problems, it mostly had to be rewritten. That's some pretty good reasons for getting flu shot, not to mention a good reason for my employer to pay 25 bucks for it.
Five days of my time costs them a LOT more than that. Fully loaded, I might well cost 10 times per hour but let's just say its 5x. I work more than eight-hour days, but let's leave it at a 40 hour week just to be conservative, since I don't spend every minute programming. That gives the flu shot a 200-to-one payoff. That seems like a no-brainer to me.
Posted by: Doctor Jay at Nov 12, 2007 2:33:48 PM
Last year, my employer offered full HMO benefits, which included the HMO coming to administer free flu shots onsite. OK, simple, I'll take one.
This year, my employer switched to a PPO + HSA plan for all exempt employees. Non-exempt (hourly and union) are still on the HMO benefits. The HMO came onsite again to give free flu shots, but for me it would cost $15.
Fuck that.
Posted by: Lawrence Tureaud at Nov 12, 2007 2:50:41 PM
Lawrence,
Fuck what? That the cost is >$0? The cost is free to some but not to others? The the cost is >$0 but it used to be $0? Or that $15 (over your sunk costs) is so much higher than your risk adjusted expect costs of getting through the flu season unvaccinated?
Posted by: mobile at Nov 12, 2007 3:14:39 PM
Selective perception perhaps.
But I remember times when I've had flu shots I've had worse cases of the flu than other times when I have not had flu shots.
John
Posted by: Shakespeare's Fool at Nov 12, 2007 3:41:37 PM
In the language of economics the flu shot creates an external benefit, a benefit to other people not captured by the person who paid the costs of getting the shot.
You only think it is not a benefit to you not to give someone else the flu if your a libertarian asshole.
Most socially conscious people would rightly feel guilty about giving other people the flu if they could have taken actions that easily would have prevented that.
Not feeling guilty and being guilty = benefit.
Posted by: HappyConservative at Nov 12, 2007 3:59:51 PM
Suggestion to encourage people to get a flu shot:
Pay them $10 to get a flu shot.
I tried to read the comments carefully; did nobody else come up with this?
Seriously, if there is an external benefit, the externality should pay for it.
Whether Medicare pays for the shot to prevent the end-of-life care of elderly victims, or the AARP pays for it to sustain their support-base, somebody SHOULD be paying me to get the flu shot -- the flu won't kill me.
[for the record, I got my first flu shot last year only because we had an infant daughter and my wife strongly recommended it (if that's the right word).]
Posted by: st4rbux at Nov 12, 2007 4:00:50 PM
In the language of economics the flu shot creates an external benefit, a benefit to other people not captured by the person who paid the costs of getting the shot.
You only think it is not a benefit to you not to give someone else the flu if your a libertarian asshole.
Most socially conscious people would rightly feel guilty about giving other people the flu if they could have taken actions that easily would have prevented that.
Not feeling guilty and being guilty = benefit.
Posted by: HappyConservative at Nov 12, 2007 4:01:15 PM
Lawrence,
Go to any local pharmacy. Most offer their placebo shot, I mean flu shot for $10 at several local locations each year.
Posted by: Shaun at Nov 12, 2007 4:02:44 PM
geez HappyConservative, troll much?
I sneeze in your general direction.
Posted by: st4rbux at Nov 12, 2007 4:08:49 PM
My doctor convinced me to get a flu shot this year because I visit my grandmother's nursing home on a weekly basis. Even though everyone in the nursing home gets a flu shot each year, the vaccine's effectiveness decreases with the recipient's age. Since I am relatively young, the vaccine is more likely to "take" to my system, so the shot is meant for me to not bring flu germs into the more vulnerable nursing home.
According to my doctor, there is no flu shot shortage this year, so feel free to get a shot.
Posted by: EC at Nov 12, 2007 4:26:26 PM
st4rbux,
geez HappyConservative, troll much?
I don't know, do you ever say anything of substance, or do you just stick to the ad hominen.
I will say it again. Anyone who does not fully internalize the benefits that others receive from not getting the flu from them when it can be easily prevented is an asshole.
See, that is where you libertarian scum go wrong. Thinking that there is no moral imperative for individuals to internalize the costs they impose on others without monetary incentives, but rather, just because it is the right thing to do. If you don't want to live in a society or a community, then you should be banished.
Posted by: HappyConservative at Nov 12, 2007 4:27:32 PM
HC,
Tell me what else I think. Apparently I'm not aware.
Posted by: josh at Nov 12, 2007 4:40:16 PM
josh,
You are correct. Apparently you are not aware of the implications of your beliefs. The implications of saying that there is an external benefit to a flu shot that is not captured by individual is to imply that the individual has not psychologically internalized this benefit.
While it is true that some particular immoral individuals would be indifferent about whether they cause unnecessary suffering in others, this is not the norm for humans. The implicit assumption of libertarians that this is the norm tells us more a about the sociopathic tendencies of libertarians than it tells us about how we should structure incentives.
Posted by: HappyConservative at Nov 12, 2007 4:53:30 PM
Alex,
I published a paper on this a few years back that you might find interesting. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, September 2004. You're quite right about young healthy people providing a benefit to others by getting immunized. Also note that it probably isn't optimal for everybody to get vaccinated, even if they're all the same. (There's an earlier paper by Brito et al that I cite that also shows that.)
Posted by: Peter at Nov 12, 2007 5:11:41 PM
Also note that it probably isn't optimal for everybody to get vaccinated
Who do you think should get flu shots and who do you think should not get them then?
Posted by: HappyConservative at Nov 12, 2007 5:21:42 PM
Remember, Folks! Please Don't Feed The Trolls!
Posted by: Bob Montgomery at Nov 12, 2007 5:33:05 PM
I trust then that HC would also stand by the converse of his assertion:
If one claims that a positive externality should not be subsidized because the individual has obviously already internalized the benefit, then it follows that no costs should be imposed on any transactions with a negative externality because the persons involved have obviously already internalized the guilt involved.
Posted by: Jooky at Nov 12, 2007 6:09:35 PM
I see where you're going with this, Cowen. Flu shot offsets! Brilliant!
Posted by: lardlad at Nov 12, 2007 6:44:09 PM
The last year I got a flu shot was the last year I got sick with anything resembling a full-blown flu. That was 1999. It's also worth mentioning that I worked in a hospital until the end of 2005.
Typically around the end of November/beginning of December, I come down with a very mild fever. If I take boatload of acetaminophen and go to bed at the first sign of it, I usually kick it in 24 hours or less. It seems to me my immune system is working just fine.
I realize I may be engaging in superstitious behavior here, but as long as this pattern holds, I'm not getting one.
Posted by: B at Nov 12, 2007 7:04:06 PM
"Let me tell you a true story about immunization. When I was a little boy in New York City in the 1940's, we swam in the Hudson River. And it was filled with raw sewage. Okay? We swam in raw sewage! You know, to cool off.
At that time the big fear was polio; thousands of kids died from polio every year. But you know somethin'? In my neighborhood no one ever got polio. No one. Ever! You know why? Because we swam in raw sewage! It strengthened our immune systems. The polio never had a prayer; we were tempered in raw shit!"
-GC
Posted by: Jay at Nov 12, 2007 7:31:25 PM
Jooky,
If people behaved in a moral manner, then there would be no need to correct for certain negative externalities. Someone who had already carefully considered the claims of the community but decided not to get a flu shot (hypothetically, say, if they had an unusually weak immune system, rendering a flu shot dangerous to their health) need not be penalized.
I should note that the that asserting that it is the norm for people to internalize the negative effects of certain behaviors on others typically does not mean that this describes the typical libertarian. Thus, a system of penalties may be necessary, precisely because certain people lack the moral qualities necessary in a good citizen.
It should be pointed out, however, that many externalities are not really about morality. (When you breathe, you emit carbon dioxide which contributes to global warming.) For these sort of externalities, systems of incentives/penalties are perfectly appropriate.
But for externalities that involve moral considerations we should only consider penalties, not incentives. But, those penalties should not be considered corrections for the externality in question, but rather as punishment for its own sake. Thus, it is entirely justified to have punishments that are much harsher than necessary to merely bring about optimal compliance.
Posted by: HappyConservative at Nov 12, 2007 7:34:24 PM
Alex, the research I have read indicates no clear demonstrated evidence that the flu shot is effective for public health, or for individual safety, when administered to young healthy adults.
It may be that I simply have not been exposed to enough research showing a clear benefit. But I can only comment on the studies I have read about.
Posted by: Matthew C. at Nov 12, 2007 9:17:35 PM
This is such an interesting topic of study! I must admit that the title is what really caught my attention. I think it'd be a great campaign; people would be more prone to get vaccinated, knowing that they could be helping spread the resistance. However, it could go both ways; people may think twice before getting the shot, knowing that they could just feed off of the ones that do.
It's hard to say. Personally, I've never gotten a flu shot. I've also never contracted it either. I may be one of those that is feeding off of the ones that do. If so, take this as my shout out to all you brave souls that go to the doc to get the shot at the beginning of every season. Can I still take you up on that kiss offer?
Posted by: 920222421 at Nov 12, 2007 11:01:16 PM
I don't like needles. It'll take rather more than the sketchy "evidence" for mass vaccination of healthy adults against somebody's best guess at the likely strains of flu that will come by this year to persuade me to take one for the team.
Of course, if I actually do get the flu, I'll stay home. That prevents others from getting it from me just fine.
Posted by: Sam at Nov 12, 2007 11:10:39 PM
Except for a few unreconstructed Randians, most people really don't *mind* being in a win-win situation, where doing something that's good for themselves is also good for other people, even if those other people are free-riding. Flu shots are especially that way - getting the shot reduces your chances of getting the flu, and having the flu sucks even if you're not an extra-vulnerable baby or old person, plus the free riders are usually people you know, so even if they're not your family you probably don't want them to get the flu, especially since they'll infect other people and/or miss work. I'm very happy to pay the cost of the shot for myself and my family even if there weren't free riders around. (And back when the government helpfully screwed up the production and distribution of flu vaccine, I was in the right age group to use the nasal vaccine that's not for use by little kids and old people, so there was no reason to feel guilty about getting mine.)
The tricky vaccination questions are for diseases like polio, where near-universal vaccination has reduced the risk of getting the disease naturally to below the (low) risk of getting it from the vaccine, and it's a serious enough disease that even a small risk of getting it is bad. We'd nearly wiped the stuff out, but recently some greedy evil politicians in Nigeria have been playing "Infidel Yankee Whitey's trying to sterilize our Muslim children" games, and enough people believed them that there are kids getting paralyzed from polio again, and the bastards don't care. I can't say that Americans aren't immune to that kind of fear, though - I know a number of hippie types who worry about the preservatives used in vaccines and are scared to vaccinate their kids.
Posted by: Bill at Nov 13, 2007 2:19:01 AM
If you guys would stop supressing your immune systems with poor diet, lack of exercise and overwork you wouldn't have to worry about these minor infections.
Posted by: jb at Nov 13, 2007 5:35:40 AM
OK. Here's another benefit; Yearly vaccination against flu is building up a catalogue of flu virus proteins that your immune system is familiar with. There is a current risk that Avian Flu such as the H5N1 strain could jump to and be transmissable in humans. The last time this happened was in 1918 with the so called Spanish Flu Pandemic. (Recent work proved this was an avian flu virus). Death occurred mostly in the age range which this discussion considers low risk - ages 18 to 36. The primary cause of death was a so called Cytokine Storm (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm). This is where the strong healthy immune systems of the victims were overreacting to a virus whose surface proteins were highly unfamiliar (because it had come from another species originally).
So, to cut to the chase, theres a chance that yearly vaccination *might* make young and healthy people less likely to die in an Avian Flu Pandemic as their immune systems are primed to a wide range of flu virus proteins already, lessening the chance of a cytokine storm. (Granted the vaccine isn't based on the avian strain, but there will be some overlap). So, there's a benefit for everybody, an insurance policy against something that may happen and will be very serious if it does.
Posted by: Jamie at Nov 13, 2007 6:05:13 AM
Actually, my fiancee is among those who are not supposed to get flu shots, because with her drug-suppressed immune system they probably won't work, and with her autoimmune diseases if they do work the activation of her immune system is probably quite bad for her.
But getting the flu would be very bad for her.
So *everyone who will ever meet her* is supposed to get a flu shot instead.
Wish we could charge that to her insurance. :-) Since we can't, socialized flu shots, please?
Posted by: Nathanael Nerode at Nov 13, 2007 9:10:24 AM
If people behaved in a moral manner, then there would be no need to correct for certain negative externalities.
And this explains why the Soviet Union failed.
Posted by: mobile at Nov 13, 2007 11:52:37 AM
I think a campaign for flu shots is a great idea. The button idea is great, it's funny and it would make people feel proud of what they have done, and hopefully encourage more to do the same. As far as I can see, getting this shot can only help you and others, and unless you have a condition that prevents you from receiving it, I see no reason why anyone wouldn't get it. I think that it's a shame that a lot of people today need more enticement than helping people to do something good.
Posted by: wcu1291 at Nov 13, 2007 12:52:14 PM
The flu vaccination has two main problems: the cost and the side effects. How can you fine people for not getting the vaccination, or for getting the flu, if they can't even afford the thing in the first place? A large percentage of the American popluation do not have insurance so they cannot afford medical care (most of these can barely afford the most essential costs of living), so things such as vaccinations that are not absolutely neccessary get pushed out of the way in order to pay for the neccessities. Secondly, you have to take into account that a good percent of the population shy away from vaccinations in general, because the vaccination itself contains the disease/virus you are vaccinating for. Yes, it's true that you will more than likely not get the disease you are being vaccinated for, however there is a slight chance. I myself get the shot but I know some people who don't, such as a woman from my town who doesn't get any kind of vaccinations since her son was rendered mentally handicapped because a childhood vaccination caused him to get the disease they were trying to prevent. So, if you really stop and think about it, while the vaccination is a very beneficial tool in the medical world, we cannot force people to get something like a vaccination by holding fines or other forms of punishment over their head.
Posted by: 9747 at Nov 13, 2007 12:57:05 PM
Well i really didn't know that by getting the flu shot you could save others the trouble of getting one and even save live. I think that if more people knew that then we might have more people getting the shot. Yes there is always going to be a large portion of the populace that doesn't care, but i think that if the government made a media campaign telling people about the dangers of the flu and how by getting ti you could save others then i think that more people would get it. its a start anyway.
Posted by: John Scott at Nov 13, 2007 2:02:37 PM
Regarding comments about whether the young and healthy benefit from flu shots they get for themselves:
First off, you are speculating in the wrong direction. The real controversy in medical research circles is whether the elderly benefit from flu shots. The biggest evidence against this supposed benefit is that the death rate of old folks from flu hasn't dropped as larger numbers of them have gotten yearly flu shots. This outcome is contrary to expectations.
The problem with the old folks is they have old immune systems. They don't respond as vigorously to the vaccinations. The young folks have stronger immune systems and gain greater immunity from vaccination.
Parenthetically, the weakening of immune systems with age might be the biggest contributor to higher rates of cancer with age. Click thru and I'll tell you a couple of things you can do to improve your immune function. That'll reduce your risk of both cancer and flu.
Posted by: Randall Parker at Nov 13, 2007 9:09:12 PM
Oh dear…
A bit of personal myth-busting from a Public Health worker:
You cannot get the flu from the flu vaccine. It’s not a live-virus vaccine (like the Polio vaccine). (I do note that the nasal vaccine is, in fact, a (weakened) live virus vaccine, so if you have concerns, stay clear of that one. FWIW, I'm not worried about it.)
Although the elderly and immunocompromised are more likely to have higher morbidity and mortality, it is possible for anyone at any age to die from the flu (or complications from the flu).
Saying that a vaccine weakens your immune system is tantamount to saying that lifting weights makes you weaker. Vaccines produce the same immune system response that the disease itself does. It just does it without making you sicken and die.
Your decision to get vaccinated is indeed a win for those around you. Herd Immunity (immunizing some fraction of the population to protect the whole population) works. Period.
When the Prevnar vaccine for children started to be in widespread use, not only did Streptococcus Pneumonia infections decrease in children… they decreased markedly in ALL age groups, and most notably in the elderly.
And it’s also true that all immunizations work less well in the elderly, which is why herd immunity is so important. If the elderly don’t get exposed, they can’t get the disease…
A $30.00 flu shot is likely cheaper than the cost to you if you get the flu. And since I can afford it, I subsidize about 5 shots a year for those who cannot afford it… ultimately, it’s in my best interest to do so, especially given that the flu shot itself may not work 100 % on me (or anyone else, for that matter).
If we expect to civilly live in a socialized society, we all bear some responsibility for the well-being of that society. If you refuse all actions for the collective good, than go live on a fucking mountaintop by yourself.
Regrettably, flu vaccinations will not likely protect you from the Avian Flu (or whatever flu strikes next). Flu vaccinations are specific enough that there is very little cross protections. In fact, sometimes the flu strains that are protected by the yearly vaccinations are not all the flu strains that are in the population in a given year. (This is in fact the case this year, as the H3N2 strain has done a slight “Antigenic Shift”, which means the current vaccine won’t be as effective against it. This is NOT a reason to avoid getting a flu shot, however, as it will offer protections against the other strains).
The flu vaccination only protects you for a few months, and takes about 2 weeks on average to take effect. Now is a good time to get the flu shot, as early indications are that this will be a later flu season this year.
SO:
1) Be responsible. Get flu shots, and if you can, pay for one for someone less advantaged if you can.
2) Be proactive. WASH YOUR HANDS!
Posted by: Zack at Nov 14, 2007 11:24:47 AM
CORRECTION TO MY PREVIOUS POST:
Antigenic drift, not antigenic shift. My apologies.
Posted by: Zack at Nov 14, 2007 11:27:41 AM
Bob wrote:
Is it just me, or is the above a contradiction to the below?
it sure as hell won't hurt you.
I mean, brief flu-like symptoms probably hurt at least a little, right?
I'm with you. My mother got the flu shot this year at age 59, and she was wiped out for days. It was really scary.
At this point I am lost on the rationale. The people who are helped by the vaccine are the same people who will suffer the worst effects from taking it.
Posted by: Anonymous at Nov 14, 2007 12:36:54 PM
Before expressing an opinion, it sometimes helps to get educated on the subject. Wikipedia is a good place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Flu
Posted by: jolani at Nov 14, 2007 4:18:24 PM
Leave fluing to the birds
Get vaccinated ye young and old
And if thou be truly bold
Vaccinate the other arm against snotty, pneumonia-spreading nerds
Posted by: Pitt at Nov 14, 2007 11:04:06 PM
from above:
>>"We could charge people who do not get their flu shots."
You've just proposed bigger gouvernment. That must be a first.
>>
brilliant!
Posted by: Mats at Nov 16, 2007 7:16:08 PM
Okay, you guys aren't going to like this but you all HAVE to get sick. You have to, but not for the reasons you think. Getting sick trains your immune system on how to, shall we say, "deal" with germs and such. It's GOOD for you to get sick, every time you do you get stronger, and it takes a little bit more to take you down. With children, it's all the better learn to fight these things as a child because it only gets harder as you get older. For those of you who use "antibacterial soap", I laugh at you, I laugh at your family, I laugh at your whole life. First you need to have germs, if you don't your body will not know how to fight them and then you're in for some real trouble. Second after about a month, or so, your skin finds ways to fight the soap and it becomes 100% ineffective.
"they sure as hell wont hurt you" Are you stupid? Mercury, and all sorts of chemicals are in that shot. Do you people know PERFICTLY HEALTHY people have walk into their doctors office and walked out paralyzed, brain damaged, it happens. Don't believe me? Look it up. Kids, adults, no one's safe, it just matters if you're that 1, out of 100,000. These vaccines do that.
The flu shot? Just a give me your money and I'll give you a lie scam.
In sum, flu shot hurts you, you need to be able to get sick to train your body, bad stuff in it and it has health effects on your nervous and such. You don't want the flu? Well boo who, you're human. Get over it.
Oh, and just to put you little whinny children into perspective, 1 out of 3 people in the usa will get cancer at some point in your lives. Some of you reading this right now WILL get it. It happens. How many people get it in your house? Wife/husband, like two kids, so four people? One or two of you will get cancer. Have fun with that, and when you or a loved one is going through chemotherapy remember how much you whinnied over the flu, I swear you'll hate yourself for it, you'll see the flu is a blessing, a miner paper cut. You people live in the clouds. Grow up.
Posted by: at Nov 22, 2007 4:41:26 AM
"I myself get the shot but I know some people who don't, such as a woman from my town who doesn't get any kind of vaccinations since her son was rendered mentally handicapped because a childhood vaccination caused him to get the disease they were trying to prevent."
Yes, here is a case of what I was talking about. (I'm the above poster)
Posted by: at Nov 22, 2007 4:47:33 AM
Levitra (vardenafil HCl) is a prescription medicine that is indicated to treat erectile dysfunction (ED). Consistent with the effects of PDE5 inhibition, administration of Levitra with nitrates and nitric oxide donors is contraindicated. Caution is advised when PDE5 inhibitors, including Levitra, are used concomitantly with stable alpha-blocker therapy, because of the potential for lowering blood pressure. Levitra is not recommended for patients with uncontrolled hypertension (>170/110 mmHg).
Posted by: Serg at Dec 16, 2007 1:50:17 PM
In men for whom sexual activity is not recommended because of their underlying cardiovascular status, any treatment for erectile dysfunction, including Levitra,
generally should not be used. In patients taking certain CYP3A4 inhibitors (eg, ritonavir, indinavir, saquinavir, atazanavir, ketoconazole, itraconazole, erythromycin, and clarithromycin), lower doses of Levitra are recommended, and time between doses
of Levitra may need to be extended. See prescribing information for Levitra for
dosing guidance.In clinical trials, the most commonly reported adverse events with Levitra were headache, flushing, and rhinitis. Adverse events were generally transient.
Posted by: Serg at Dec 16, 2007 1:50:59 PM
Nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) has been reported rarely postmarketing in temporal relationship with the use of PDE5 inhibitors, including Levitra. Sudden loss of hearing, sometimes with tinnitus and dizziness,
also has been reported rarely in temporal association with the use of PDE5 inhibitors, including Levitra. It is not possible to determine if these events
are related to PDE5 inhibitors or to other factors. Physicians should advise patients to stop use of PDE5 inhibitors, including Levitra, and seek prompt
medical attention in the event of sudden loss of vision or hearing.
Posted by: Serg at Dec 16, 2007 1:51:43 PM
The recommended starting dose of Levitra is 10 mg. Titrate up to 20 mg or down to 5 mg based on efficacy and side effects. The maximum recommended dosing frequency is once daily. Levitra is available in 2.5-mg, 5-mg, 10-mg and 20-mg tablets. For Prescribing Information please visit New Online Pharmacy
Posted by: Serg at Dec 16, 2007 1:52:23 PM
Levitra (vardenafil HCl) is a prescription medicine that is indicated to treat erectile dysfunction (ED). Consistent with the effects of PDE5 inhibition, administration of Levitra with nitrates and nitric oxide donors is contraindicated. Caution is advised when PDE5 inhibitors, including Levitra, are used concomitantly with stable alpha-blocker therapy, because of the potential for lowering blood pressure. Levitra is not recommended for patients with uncontrolled hypertension (>170/110 mmHg).
Posted by: Serg at Dec 16, 2007 1:57:14 PM
In men for whom sexual activity is not recommended because of their underlying cardiovascular status, any treatment for erectile dysfunction, including Levitra,
generally should not be used. In patients taking certain CYP3A4 inhibitors (eg, ritonavir, indinavir, saquinavir, atazanavir, ketoconazole, itraconazole, erythromycin, and clarithromycin), lower doses of Levitra are recommended, and time between doses
of Levitra may need to be extended. See prescribing information for Levitra for
dosing guidance.In clinical trials, the most commonly reported adverse events with Levitra were headache, flushing, and rhinitis. Adverse events were generally transient.
Posted by: Serg at Dec 16, 2007 1:57:57 PM
Nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) has been reported rarely postmarketing in temporal relationship with the use of PDE5 inhibitors, including Levitra. Sudden loss of hearing, sometimes with tinnitus and dizziness,
also has been reported rarely in temporal association with the use of PDE5 inhibitors, including Levitra. It is not possible to determine if these events
are related to PDE5 inhibitors or to other factors. Physicians should advise patients to stop use of PDE5 inhibitors, including Levitra, and seek prompt
medical attention in the event of sudden loss of vision or hearing.
Posted by: Serg at Dec 16, 2007 1:59:47 PM
The recommended starting dose of Levitra is 10 mg. Titrate up to 20 mg or down to 5 mg based on efficacy and side effects. The maximum recommended dosing frequency is once daily. Levitra is available in 2.5-mg, 5-mg, 10-mg and 20-mg tablets. For Prescribing Information please visit New Online Pharmacy
Posted by: Serg at Dec 16, 2007 2:00:33 PM
The toxic heavy metals in vaccinations are enough to completely discourage me and my kids from getting them. If there's even a 1/10,000 chance (which there is) that there might be a long lasting negative effect (or even death!) from taking the shot, my kids will never ever have it. Ever.
Vaccinations are unnecessary if your immune system is working at its optimum, so I refuse them. Eat healthy, exercise, think happy thoughts, and get adjusted by a chiropractor regularly (to keep the nervous system communicating with the body at the highest level) and you will never ever ever ever need a vaccination.
Posted by: HealthWithoutDrugs at Feb 13, 2008 6:30:06 AM
Posted by: 鑽石 at Apr 2, 2008 11:20:16 PM
Free weight loss resources is to help you make healthy food and lifestyle choices for you and your family. You'll find topics that will help improve your overall health and sense of well-being related to weight loss, relationships, diet, exercises, nutrition, vitamins, prevention, and more. The first goal of dieting is to stop further weight gain. The next goal is to establish realistic weight loss goals. While the ideal weight is a BMI of 20-25, this is difficult to achieve for many people. Thus success is higher when a goal is set to lose 10% to 15% of baseline weight as opposed to 20% to 30% or higher. It is also important to remember that any weight reduction in an obese person would result in health benefits.
Hoodia is currently the most publicized and talked about natural weight loss product in America . It has been featured on CBS 60 Minutes, ABC, NBC Today, BBC, CNN and in other major electronic and print media.
Posted by: online pharmacy at May 11, 2008 10:35:47 AM
