Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Flu shot or not?

Maybe they should have 2 different emergency rooms - those for people with preventable emergencies and those with unpreventable emergencies.

Personally I had to go to the same emergency room three times in 30 days. I did not see the "abuses" you described.

I have insurance and my daughter fell while skating and her ankle swelled instantly. The doctor's office was closed and urgent care said the x ray tech was gone for the day and she needed an orthopedist and they don't have one on staff anyway.

I suppose I should only have allowed her to skate until 4:30pm so if she got hurt we wouldn't be abusing the ER.

Or maybe to not allow her to skate at all because getting hurt happens and so then it was a preventable emergency.

They didn't have you stay over because typically patients from that procedure don't stay overnight (or the bed would have been reserved)and it wasn't an emergency.

Oh come on now Maggie, let's not exaggerate things now. There is a proper time and a proper place for proper ER use.

I do love your idea though about 2 separate ER rooms. That would be nicer.

No, mine was not an emergency because I went to my doctor to have things checked out as I should have done before it became an emergency.

Even my surgeon said (along with many other people) that 10 years ago, this type of surgery would have been considered a normal 5 day hospital stay but, as many of us know, the insurance companies dictate today what they are going to pay for and how much and how long you can stay in the hospital. That is a main reason why we cannot stay longer.

One reason they wanted to keep me there in the first place was to help control the pain. Not that I'm a wuss, I'm certainly not that.

BDB if you think for a minute that the healthcare is going to be less expensive you are dead wrong. It has already gone up and will go up more this year and a lot more next year. My wife is an insurance agent and knows a lot more about what is coming down the pike than we are being told and so far, she has been right on the money. But, I don't care to get into that debate.

I have no idea whether the overall effect of the healthcare act will increase or reduce the cost. All I was saying is that lowering the number of emergency room visits is expected to reduce costs. Whether that is offset by other costs, I do not know.

However, no matter what, my rates have gone up. When I started tuning, one tuning would cover a month's insurance. Now it takes five or six.

Food for thought

According to WOT (Web Of Trust), the site has a very poor reputation rating.

When I get a new computer, the first thing I do is to install WOT plugin for my browser as an essential security tool.

I'm exactly as serious as Bigmark.

A variant of Poe's Law?

Jerry, was there a difference in your flu symptoms when you had received the flu shot and when you did not get the flu shot?


Ando, I believe Bigmark was being facetious.

Each time I got the flu shot, after a couple of days I wound up being sick for about a week up to maybe 10 days or so tops. I've been healthier without getting the flu shot but then I take Vitamin D3 twice a day too FWIW.

Without the flu shot when I got sick, it lasted about the same amount of time. The symptoms were pretty much the same as far as I can remember.

Many places in the US already have this system in the form of County Hospitals and for profit hospitals.

In my personal experience I see no correlation between getting the flu shot and not getting the flu. Last winter I got the flu shot and got sick four consecutive times - it was absolutely dreadful, the worst winter of my life. This winter I did not get the flu shot and my health is sterling. Again, I see no direct benefit to anyone but the stockholders of drug companies.

One of my students is a nurse and said that people who get the flu shot are still getting the flu, so I am going to pass again this year on the flu shot. Thanks to everyone for their input--it has been very informative, intersting and helpful.

Here's what the CDC says:



In other words, the real data shows effectiveness between 60% and 90%.

And most people will reject the data in favor of an anecdote from a cousin of their mother-in-law's neighbor who never gets the flu shot and hasn't been sick a day in her life.

Tim, the data is not scientific enough IMO.

If you had randomly chosen groups (Group A gets vaccine, Group B doesn't) then you have the basis for a scientific study. But this study compares those who choose a vaccine (the insured, middle class) to those who do not get the vaccine. This is not a scientific study. This study has merely shown that middle class folks are less likely to get sick than poor folks. No surprise there.

It could likely be shown that folks who refrain from attending ball games and church during flu season are 60% less likely to get the flu. But there seems to be little interest in common sense these days. Much more exciting to look for a purchase that ensures good health.

I am a veteran, and go to the VA clinic. Flu shots are free for all veterans at the clinic, regardless of their economic status. Many are clearly not middle class.

You are properly skeptical with respect to the medical position.

It is based on an in depth understanding of biochemical functioning on the molecular level, including knowing the specific proteins that bind on the antigen sites and being able to sequence the genome of the virus. And it is based on large studies to determine the safety and effectiveness. And you should consider that when you apply your critical thinking skills to the problem - but I agree you should still do so.

However.

At the same time most of the people who are so extremely skeptical of the scientific or medical positions are completely unwilling to apply even a fraction of that skepticism to the alternatives.

Seems a bit contradictory, no? Huge amounts of scientific data on the one side, must apply extreme skepticism and question everything; couple of anecdotes on the other side, must be true.

I guarantee you that if any alternatives caused the damage that vaccines have caused, the alternatives would be quickly pulled from the market. Only with vaccines do we have the government jump in and decide the companies are too important to fail, and shift all responsibility for damages onto the taxpayer.

The alternatives such as hand washing and avoiding crowds have never been associated with GBS or brain damage (i.e. learning disorders and autism). Vaccines do appear to be contributing to these problems. And we have yet to have a scientific study do more than analyze preservatives in vaccine. Endless speculation. But never a scientific study of two groups randomly assigned to the group that get or don't get vaccines. Plus studying one vaccine, is not like reality which is that babies get immunized against 7 diseases in one office visit...then repeat at regular intervals.

Wow! I actually received a benefit by participating in this debate. LOL!

I've had a continuous headache for 2 days. But now after getting my blood boiling over this issue, the headache is gone. I'm sure there is a scientific reason...most likely epinephrine and endorphins released as part of the fight or flight response.

Anyway, thank you for this cure that my usual OTC remedies could not handle.

OK. I sign out now. Years ago I saw statistics about effectiveness of certain vaccines. Effectiveness looks indisputable in one representation. Then overlay the usual bell curve that an outbreak has and you see the vaccines came in at the tail of the bell curve. Sometimes how effective a vaccine looked depended on whether you looked at monthly or yearly stats etc. It all depended on how the statistics were presented. So, yes, I am a doubting Thomas.

"...So, yes, I am a doubting Thomas."

Well, I'm glad your headache is better.

Is there a study to back up this assertion, or is this assertion anecdotal in nature?