[montag813]

there is a very compelling argument that it is in the public's interest to have flu shots, especially among the elderly, the very young, and those who have pulmonary diseases.

I said no compelling interest for MANDATORY flu shots. That is what NJ is doing. You want to give your children a shot, go right ahead. But I choose not to do so, and there is no possibility for any rampant epidemic to occur as a result. Because of that fact, flu shots are totally distinct from critical vaccinations that carry such a risk when people fail to give them to children. You seem to stand alone in this thread in advocating the opposite. Good luck to you.

[gondramB]

>>I said no compelling interest for MANDATORY flu shots. That is what NJ is doing. You want to give your children a shot, go right ahead. But I choose not to do so, and there is no possibility for any rampant epidemic to occur as a result. Because of that fact, flu shots are totally distinct from critical vaccinations that carry such a risk when people fail to give them to children. You seem to stand alone in this thread in advocating the opposite. Good luck to you.<<

Well, each year an average of 36,000 people in the United States die from complications of the flu. The vaccine is estimated at between 70%-90% effective depending on the year.

If you wanted to spread the flu, taking a child from each family and bringing them together during the day and then returning them at night would be an excellent way.

If requiring vaccines in general is constitutional I don't see where this is different.

[Sudetenland]

What no clever comeback for my correction of your false statement? Oh well, you're excused for your gross mischaracterization of my statement.

As for the rest, every year in the United States-according to CDC figures-40,000 people die either directly from or from complications caused by the flu, 226,000 people are hospitalized for it. The vast majority of those deaths are the very young and the very old because both lack vigorous immune systems and the physical strength to deal with the rigors of flu.

At the height of the polio myelitis epidemic, 1952 and 1953 their were 58,000 and 35,000 cases of polio in the US. The effectiveness of current flu vaccines is somewhat debatable, but for the elderly, those who do not get the vaccination are 2 1/2-3 times as likely to contract flu. The Mayo Clinic puts the efficacy rate for the shot at 70-90%

A flu shot is between 70 percent and 90 percent effective in warding off illness, depending on the length and intensity of a given flu season and your overall health. In a few cases, people who get a flu shot may still get the flu, but they'll get a much less virulent form of the illness and, most important, they'll have a decreased risk of flu-related complications — especially pneumonia, heart attack, stroke and death — to which older adults are especially vulnerable.

Since 90% of the deaths due to flu occur in the elderly, the numbers are fairly convincing. ON the other hand, the chances of anyone dying from a flu vaccination are virtually nil unless you are allergic to eggs.

Then you assert the following:

there is no possibility for any rampant epidemic to occur as a result.

YOu have no proof of that statement, and at least in one year, 1918 your statement is provably false. In 1918 about a ahlf a million Americans died of the "Spanish influenza." World wide estimates run as high as 100 million people. While the liklihood of another such outbreak is small, it is still a very real possibility. No longer a rural population as a majority of American were in 1918, an outbreak of such magnitude or worse is a very real possibility. Population compression (crowded conditions) serve to amplify the hazards of rapid transmission, increasing the risks of such a wide-spread lethal outbreak, not lessening it.

Compelling mass inocculation is not an absurd suggestion given the risks. If a bad outbreak were to occur in the United States, it would be too late to do anything about it because it requires two weeks for innocculations to reach full effectiveness. What has kept us safe so far is that our flu season usually follows that of other parts of the world.

Is it perfect no. Is it effective, fairly well. Should it be mandatory, who knows. At what point does the good of the many out weigh the good of the few? At what point does your right to refuse become a direct threat to my right to avoid infection? At what point would those who refuse and suffer a catastrophic epidemic then turn to the same government they castigated for demanding vaccinations and expect them to provide financial and medical care for them? History says the probablility of the last is very high....bail me out because I'm stupid has become the watch word of our populous. From living in a below sea-level bowl during a hurricane, to living in an area in which earthquakes occur with dazzling regularity, to failing to prepare for your financial future, Americans virtually always look to the Government to bail them out for their foolish choices.