Not at all. As I mentioned, it's entirely reasonable to question the reasons the policy was implemented, or how it is happening. But some people early in this thread expanded that to a general antivaccination commentary. It's to those that the general comments were made. There is certainly a difference between questioning a the new policy and questioning the vaccinations in general.

Because the government is nowhere near that good at hiding things, and after years of flu-shotting, you'd sure have heard if they were injecting placebos? I mean, that's a super-simple answer...
How is that relevant? The idea is that you can carry influenza and pass it on to the immuno-compromised even if your immune system is strong enough to keep you asymptotic.

I've never had influenza in my remembered/recorded life (age 6+). I've never bothered to get a flu shot for my own protection, since my immune system seems to do okay on its own. But I also don't regularly come into contact with the very young, very old, or ill, which would add a good reason to get one.

The government wouldn't know...they're just footing the bill. Think the corporations aren't sneaky enough when it comes to "hiding things"? They are the ones pushing tobacco, Aspartame, etc. What I suggested (coyly, as one member put it) is not as implausible as you might think. Granted it's a conspiracy theory of the worst orderm but stranger things HAVE happened (although that in itself is NOT an excuse for opting out of a vaccination program).

I am not trying to influence anybody's decision to get a shot or not.
If you want to immunize yourself against a single strain that MIGHT make its way into our world, then fill yer boots.
My decision to fight this mandatory requirement (for as long as I can) is based on the FACT that their predictions are typically wrong; ergo the "shot" is basically just a waste of time and resources.
As someone mentioned, hygiene and barriers can be just as effective in controlling the spread of any disease. Getting the shot will NOT prevent me from carrying the virus.

Labeling anyone who does not agree with getting a flu shot as being part of the anti-vaccination crowd is right up there with calling "tree huggers" terrorists. I know plenty of people that have all their vaccinations up to date that refuse to get the flu shot. It has nothing to do with being anti-vaccination.

^Again, the anti- anti-vax comments were in response to the anti-vax comments that came up. Not in response to the general questions about the individual worth of a flu shot or the implementation of the policy.

Haha, I feel like this thread can't go anywhere good unless you want to keep making that distinction.

However, that's EXACTLY what happened. It was a discussion about the efficacy and perhaps morality of forcing health care workers to have the flu shot. Then some of the total anti-vaccination garbage was posted, and I stated that in no way can that go without comment. It's dangerous non-science that is thought to be a valid position, when it has no basis in fact.

I apologize for derailing the thread, but it was already heading off the tracks thanks to the previous posting.

As for Rachel making the distinction, well, perhaps its because it keeps being raised.

This is exactly my reaction too. It may derail the thread, but it's a poisonous piece of rhetoric that needs to be stamped out whenever it appears.

That said, I'm not sure I see the moral quandary in mandatory flu vaccinations. There are plenty of invasive things I commit myself to as a health care worker. It comes with the job. If the argument is that they are pointless, then that's a matter of maybe wasted effort and money, but not so much the morality of enforced, maybe pointless, vaccination.

In the mid seventies, I was in the US Navy and it was mandatory to get the swine flu shot.
I was on leave and skipped out the day they were giving them. I got back to the ship and everyone said I was lucky to not get that shot. They pulled it. I then heard that the scuttle was that the military is always getting new shots in boot camps because they are given to a broad cross section of people of all kinds of backgrounds and provides a great test area. Well, not test area, because tests were done prior. But, military boot camps have people from all over the world from all walks of life. We were told we are the first to protect with the mandatory vaccinations. And what better cross section test is there? Except we had no elderly. Except Jimmy Carter hehe he was born old.

I used to get multiple shots in long lines of sailors with those damned air guns. One guy flinched and it ripped a two inch gash in his arm. Blood ran down his arm onto the floor. I made sure I never moved. They use these air guns in large groups like us sailors. ouch.....

The last people I would ever trust to give me a shot of any kind would be military people.

I think it is just a question of information given to all; and how we evaluate the risk of the vaccination versus the risk of not vaccinating.

I have had tetanus shots; but never for flu. Simply relied on own system to carry through; As I am aware a good healthy lifestyle helps in vigorous frequent activity, good diet and nutrition, good rest, etc... to naturally boost own immune system.

K

This is certainly wise but it's not just about you getting sick. It's about carrying the virus while you don't get sick but your immune system is still coping with contamination.

Also, I don't think people are giving enough credit to the fact that when the predictions ARE accurate they reduce infection by as much as 80% and as low as 50%. The weather channel makes poor predictions but I don't resent bringing an umbrella as much as do not. I still think the intrusion is extremely minor and the benefit can be very substantial.

http://www.coastreporter.net/article...oncerns-nurses

Cherry Pirate, your red herring showed up in the first couple of paragraphs of the front page article in the most recent edition. While you may consider it a red herring, others obviously feel there is merit to the notion.

You have misunderstood my use of red herring. It's a red herring because it does not affect this debate. I know hand cleaning does wonders, I suppose I shouldn't take it personally that you wouldn't assume I knew that since you don't really know me. What I meant was, in the same way that you excused the discussion of other enforced vaccines as irrelevant to our concerns, the hand washing and rest of it was irrelevant. Not irrelevant to the prevention of influenza and its transmission, but irrelevant to making a case for or against the enforced flu vaccination amongst health workers.

As I said before, I agree with both assertions without contradiction.

C'mon man, just because I don't agree that it's a red herring doesn't mean that you need to define the term and accuse me of not understanding. I simply think that it is relevant.

FYI, we're not talking about hand washing. Your earlier categorization of red herring was in reply to comments about understaffing. Similarly, I made reference to "the first couple of paragraphs" of the article, which are also about understaffing, not hand washing. Not sure the point of discourse if you're not really paying attention....