Covid-19 — An Interesting New Theory Has Emerged

Why is the percentage of people getting a flu shot less than 50%?
:man_shrugging:

Last I heard, flu vaccination coverage among adults was around 45%.

I think they are generally free in the U.S., at least in a lot of states.

In fact, the pharmacy at my grocery store gives a gift card to the grocery store just for getting a flu shot. They are paying you to get a flu shot!

But people still skip them and get sick with the flu and miss work. I know they are not 100% effective and there are different strains of the flu, but why is the percentage of people getting the flu shot so low?

I am not an anti-vaxer by any means… But I do MISTRUST the rushed process by which they are delivering these vaccines. Tthere is a history of bad reactions to ingredients in vaccines. Thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative commonly used in vaccines until 2001, is a good example. There are all sorts of scientific studies that “proved” Thimerosal is safe in small doses, such as that given in vaccines… Except the anecdotal evidence to the contrary is over-whelming. There’s a reason the big corporate giants agreed to disuse it, despite their data. You have to understand that scientific studies don’t mean :poop: anymore, unless they are done by an unbiased party… Which they never are anymore. Someone is paying for the research, and the data is painfully easy to skew, and the data better benefit the funder. Scientific research is tantamount to an advanced type of advertising now and a legal band-aid. I’ve been a medical researcher my entire career, and was the chief science officer for a medical device manufacturer (not diabetes-related) until I retired to a farm a few years ago, I KNOW the shortcomings of scientific research.

There’s a big difference between being an anti-vaxer, and wanting to see how it pans out in the real world. I simply can’t trust a rushed vaccine that is intended to be delivered to the entire world’s population. My husband and I have had this discussion many times over, trying to figure out how to determine when we personally feel it had been vetted enough. I suspect I will refuse it the first time my doctor pushes it, and give in at the following appointment if I haven’t seen much evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, side effects can take years to become evident, and I don’t think I can afford to hold out that long. We all have to weigh our risk/reward, and as little as I trust such a vaccine, I’m leaning towards the reward side of the scale… But there’s a whole lot of people who won’t see the reward at all, and I can’t fault them their right to make personal choices.

3 Likes

But we for practical purposes already don’t have the “right” to refuse vaccines in the USA. Nobody is going to come kick your door down and force you to take a vaccine, but you can’t in many states enroll unvaccinated children in public schools or childcare… so there really isn’t much choice in the matter.

I think a Covid vaccine would be treated differently. There is an enormous difference between measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) inoculation and a Covid vaccine. The MMR has been proven in use for decades, and if there were something untrustworthy about a Covid vaccine parents and doctors can push back, and they will be heard.

I suspect the reason is that the majority of people believe only the elderly are at risk of dying from the flu.

While many immunocompromised people get flu vaccinations, just as many more do not.

Who here regularly gets flu vaccines, and who doesn’t? I’ve gotten the flu vaccination every year since 2009.

2 Likes

I get it every year also.

2 Likes

Got mine for this year last week, and expect to get a second early next year…

1 Like

There is a good chance most of us have already seen this but this is why they need to have 3 or 4 drugs in the pipeline, and to remember that it often takes a while to develop a usable vaccine. As we know, there can be devastating side effects if the vaccine is rushed.

1 Like

Some of us are luckier than others when it comes to getting a flu shot, with good insurance, and an employer that both provides and requires vaccination, and an 1100-unit condo community where a local pharmacy comes in and provides them. For some people, the process isn’t quite as easy, required by an employer, or covered. Even worse, for those not having a good employer, arranging the time can be tough.

It can be costly without insurance. But if you have coverage, it should not matter on the insurance policy you have. Health insurers are required by the Affordable Care Act to cover all of the federally recommended vaccines. So if you have insurance, the flu shot is free.

The insurance policy may dictate a location, but my understanding is that the cost to the individual is zero if they are insured.

Reference:
https://www.hhs.gov/answers/affordable-care-act/will-the-aca-cover-my-flu-shot/index.html

I just got a pneumonia vaccine and shingles vaccine. Flu vaccine was not yet available but my Dr said CVS provides them.

1 Like

I think it’s far to early to know what, if anything the AstraZeneca headline means or doesn’t mean. For all we know it could just mean something like someone had some diarrhea and they have to follow protocol and pause to make sure it’s not related

Typical of the New York Times the only “details” they provide, eg transverse myelitis or whatever it is is from completely unverifiable anonymous sources

Key point “ The company said that in large trials like the ones it is overseeing, participants do sometimes become sick by chance “but must be independently reviewed to check this carefully.”

It’s usually about $35 cash price for flu vaccine. For some reason my insurance doesn’t like the way my local pharmacy codes it do for years I’ve paid cash for it then submitted it manually to my insurance

Although I agree that it could mean nothing and that the illness that occurred was for some other reason, but I wondered about the jibe at the NY Times, and although Nature is likely better, what would you have preferred?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02594-w

1 Like

Yes, that’s a better article without “details provided by an anonymous source familiar with the subject” or however NYT phrased it.

1 Like

I definitely won’t get the first COVID-19 vaccination available, because of the rush to make them available before the election. I need proof that they are safe and that they work. I normally get the flu shot, but unless someone comes out to my car to inject me, I won’t get one. I never see anyone besides my husband. I haven’t been in a store since Feb and I never go out except for walks. My husband rarely goes anywhere and he takes extreme safety precautions when he does. Our groceries and pharmaceuticals are delivered.

2 Likes

I got a vaccine that way from CVS. The person from their Minute Clinic came out to the car, checked my temperature, and then injected me.

They did a good job with it. Called me on my phone to verify I was in the parking lot before they came out.

Check it out with them. :+1:

4 Likes

I would imagine the issue is that the NYT needs to be timely, and it isn’t until later that more information is provided, found, and/or understood. If you were to go to the site now, you would see updated material with the event that triggered the testing pause. Even then, people will talk if they are anonymous, and in the case of the NYT, I don’t remember, although I’m sure it must have happened, that they were burned for any anonymous sources.

We don’t have a CVS, but I will check to see if Rite Aid will come to the car. I asked a couple of months ago and they were not doing it. Still don’t know if I will get one since we are never with other people.

1 Like

The NYT has an over 150 year history of providing mostly accurate info and following up with corrections when wrong. I think it’s fine for them to continue to keep some sources anonymous. Just because they can’t publicly share source’s names doesn’t mean they haven’t verified things before reporting on them.

1 Like