Opinions on flu vaccines and vaccines in general

[Khalid X]

There's no cure for the flu but there is a vaccine that reduces your chance of catching it plus drugs to alleviate the symptoms should they become life threatening. I'm surprised that someone with your undoubted education wouldn't know that.

One more thing and i'm out.

I always say that there will never be a cure for HIV because there is no cure for the flu. If you can't get rid of a virus like the flu....how can you rid the world of a virus like HIV that has a faster mutation rate.

[Khalid X]

Another great post. Thanks for the contribution.

One thing I'll add regarding the bolded, though - You pretty much stated the reason why they're not pointless with the prior statement that I underlined.

We human beings are selfish creatures by nature, tending to only really think about what things directly affect us, but flu vaccines work wonders in preventing death in children, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems via either a disease (AIDS/HIV) or a medical treatment (chemotherapy).

So they're not pointless at all if you happen to fall into any of those three categories. They won't stop you from getting sick, but there's a damn good chance that they'll prevent you from dying due to being sick. It's just that most people, being self-centered, tend to only think about such things in a "does it help me?" nature.

That's why we unfortunately have a country where 25% of adults think that vaccinations are either pointless or, worse yet, an inherently evil tool employed by the government to make them ******ed.

They'd be so much happier if they just realized that they already are ******ed for having that belief.

OK...thanks for the correct. I should have elaborated my point the way you did.

What I meant to say was....pretty much pointless, IMO, for healthy adults. However I agree with you on the post above, but my point about healthy adults is strictly my personal opinion, which may be biased.

[ßringer]

Not to steer this conversation in a different direction but I use to think that but after numerous studies on the evolution of our immune system, the complete opposite it true.

What would ultimately happen is that large amounts of humans would be wiped out, bottleneck would occur then founder groups would emerge with immune systems resistant to those various diseases etc.

For instance felines and chimps both have disease akin to HIV in humans (FIV and SIV). However it's only devastating to humans because it's more recent in our evolutionary history. Both Felines and Chimps have those and due to evolution....it's basically harmless to them. Humans are already developing resistances to HIV....and in our evolutionary history, there have been devasting disease we have overcome without the help of medical research.

I say all of that to say this; yes those brilliant men have contributed greatly to medical science and say countless lives......however with the way evolution works, we would have eventually developed resistances to them anyway. However it's an arm's race and thankfully with have talent individuals that continue to help fight these constantly evolving diseases.

Meh, don't worry about steering the conversation off-topic - This is a place where people regularly post videos of street fights and twerking, so this conversation you bring up is a delightful excursion from our typical conversations.

I actually agree with you, but only to a point.

You're absolutely correct in saying that evolution likely would've gotten us here on its own but, as you know, evolution takes time. We have no idea how long it took for certain species, like chimps for example, to come to grips with the HIV infection and how that period of time affected their overall population.

The black plague is a great example of what you speak of on a human level where we were able to cope with widespread illness without the need for (then non-existent) medical intervention. But bubonic plague was a lot easier to deal with (quarantine, better hygiene, etc...) than something like smallpox.

Were it not for medical intervention the native American population (and countless others by proxy) would've been slaughtered by that disease.

Still, like I said, it's a very interesting debate you raise regarding vaccinations vs. evolution. It's just that, were a pandemic to break out tomorrow, I'd feel much safer knowing the medical community was on our side than sitting around waiting for my own immune system to figure it out, y'know?

Short term gain vs. long term benefit, really.

[Furn]

Another interesting point is that it isn't advantageous for a pathogen to a actually kill its host, it's generally an unintended byproduct of the disease either avoiding immune response or trying to spread.

A good example is the myxomatosis virus, which was a South American virus that infected rabbits but was relatively harmless. When introduced to Australia in order to reduce the rabbit population. It had an almost 100% mortality rate on local rabbits as they had never been exposed to it. Within a few years the mortality rate dropped to around 60%. It was assumed that rabbits had adapted to the disease but research later showed that it was in fact the virus that had mutated in order to become less deadly as killing every host quickly makes it difficult to spread.

So even without medical intervention it's highly unlikely the human species itself would be threatened by any one disease as seen in the movies, but that's not how we work. We can't just let 80% of the world die in order to create a stringer more resistant species.

[Khalid X]

Another interesting point is that it isn't advantageous for a pathogen to a actually kill its host, it's generally an unintended byproduct of the disease either avoiding immune response or trying to spread.

A good example is the myxomatosis virus, which was a South American virus that infected rabbits but was relatively harmless. When introduced to Australia in order to reduce the rabbit population. It had an almost 100% mortality rate on local rabbits as they had never been exposed to it. Within a few years the mortality rate dropped to around 60%. It was assumed that rabbits had adapted to the disease but research later showed that it was in fact the virus that had mutated in order to become less deadly as killing every host quickly makes it difficult to spread.

So even without medical intervention it's highly unlikely the human species itself would be threatened by any one disease as seen in the movies, but that's not how we work. We can't just let 80% of the world die in order to create a stringer more resistant species.

This is pretty much the "Trade off Hypothesis" when it comes to virulence.

Great post......

[Khalid X]

Meh, don't worry about steering the conversation off-topic - This is a place where people regularly post videos of street fights and twerking, so this conversation you bring up is a delightful excursion from our typical conversations.

I actually agree with you, but only to a point.

You're absolutely correct in saying that evolution likely would've gotten us here on its own but, as you know, evolution takes time. We have no idea how long it took for certain species, like chimps for example, to come to grips with the HIV infection and how that period of time affected their overall population.

The black plague is a great example of what you speak of on a human level where we were able to cope with widespread illness without the need for (then non-existent) medical intervention. But bubonic plague was a lot easier to deal with (quarantine, better hygiene, etc...) than something like smallpox.

Were it not for medical intervention the native American population (and countless others by proxy) would've been slaughtered by that disease.

Still, like I said, it's a very interesting debate you raise regarding vaccinations vs. evolution. It's just that, were a pandemic to break out tomorrow, I'd feel much safer knowing the medical community was on our side than sitting around waiting for my own immune system to figure it out, y'know?

Short term gain vs. long term benefit, really.

LOL.....great point.

I'm selfish in the sense that I'd rather have science benefit me now, than evolution benefit us as a species.

I could care less that generations 1,000 of years from now reap the benefit while others and myself get wiped out..

Your definitely on point with that and I agree with you 100%

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I don't get vaccines as an adult,, don't really remember all the ones I got as a kid..

Like squelpiggy said, they aren't some evil plan of of plot for world domination, but I do think they get overrated once u become an adult..

Young and elderly it makes sense, but not at 25,30

[jaded]

Another interesting point is that it isn't advantageous for a pathogen to a actually kill its host, it's generally an unintended byproduct of the disease either avoiding immune response or trying to spread.

A good example is the myxomatosis virus, which was a South American virus that infected rabbits but was relatively harmless. When introduced to Australia in order to reduce the rabbit population. It had an almost 100% mortality rate on local rabbits as they had never been exposed to it. Within a few years the mortality rate dropped to around 60%. It was assumed that rabbits had adapted to the disease but research later showed that it was in fact the virus that had mutated in order to become less deadly as killing every host quickly makes it difficult to spread.

So even without medical intervention it's highly unlikely the human species itself would be threatened by any one disease as seen in the movies, but that's not how we work. We can't just let 80% of the world die in order to create a stringer more resistant species.

Yeah...that's what I was thinking.

[squealpiggy]

The black plague is a great example of what you speak of on a human level where we were able to cope with widespread illness without the need for (then non-existent) medical intervention. But bubonic plague was a lot easier to deal with (quarantine, better hygiene, etc...) than something like smallpox.

We didn't cope with it all that well. It killed up to 60% of the population of Europe and a quarter of the population of the planet.

[New England]

Another interesting point is that it isn't advantageous for a pathogen to a actually kill its host, it's generally an unintended byproduct of the disease either avoiding immune response or trying to spread.

A good example is the myxomatosis virus, which was a South American virus that infected rabbits but was relatively harmless. When introduced to Australia in order to reduce the rabbit population. It had an almost 100% mortality rate on local rabbits as they had never been exposed to it. Within a few years the mortality rate dropped to around 60%. It was assumed that rabbits had adapted to the disease but research later showed that it was in fact the virus that had mutated in order to become less deadly as killing every host quickly makes it difficult to spread.

So even without medical intervention it's highly unlikely the human species itself would be threatened by any one disease as seen in the movies, but that's not how we work. We can't just let 80% of the world die in order to create a stringer more resistant species.

semi related, mate:




i've always loved the drumming on this track. dude can really beat on them things. no ****.