- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:39 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
I think he's saying there are different standards of efficacy for vaccines that are offered to the public than for those mandated for the public (and I'd add yet another standard for compulsory to the public if we're going back to early 20th century smallpox).
Exactly. A mandated vaccine offers the potential for actually eradicating a disease. That offers a tremendous amount of cost-savings. In theory, it should have a high efficacy rate and we should be able to control the transmission vectors to a reasonable degree. Influenza is a vaccine that has variable effectiveness and where we have variable control on transmission vectors.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:41 pm to Flats
quote:
Really? You think the distrust earned by the medical community of experts shitting itself in slow motion was mainly due to the delivery method of the vaccine/not-a-vaccine?
Given that people repeatedly mention the number of injections given to infants, yes, that is an important factor for the series of vaccines need to attend schools.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:41 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
I think he's saying there are different standards of efficacy for vaccines that are offered to the public than for those mandated for the public
COVID proved that wrong.
What he's saying, whether he means to or not, is that the medical community is fine with giving you a shot that they don't think is effective. It might be, it's better than nothing, go ahead and take it so we can bill someone.
And these are the people we're supposed to listen to when it comes to decisions that have a much higher potential downside than a garden variety flu shot.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:47 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
No, I think that's a major part of the entire historical >200 year history of vaccine resistance and not a trivial part of this response.
So the average Joe today, in your mind, has the same understanding of biology as someone living 200 years ago. They may not want you to inject Ebola infected blood into their arm, but if you tell them to snort it they don't know any better and they'll happily do so.
Are you serious? Do you really have that much of a God complex?
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:48 pm to Flats
quote:
What he's saying, whether he means to or not, is that the medical community is fine with giving you a shot that they don't think is effective. It might be, it's better than nothing, go ahead and take it so we can bill someone.
Well first, that was the approach during COVID and it was stupid given the limitations. Of course, no one will remember this, but I argued against the piecemeal distribution of a vaccine with a narrow molecular profile as I said, rightly, that it would prolong the pandemic. And the influenza has variable effectiveness from season to season.
quote:
And these are the people we're supposed to listen to when it comes to decisions that have a much higher potential downside than a garden variety flu shot.
Most of the vaccines we have developed other than COVID are more effective than the flu shot is year to year. What is the potential downside of a cheap, effective intervention if the result is near eradication of a disease?
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:50 pm to Flats
I see that differently, out of some nuance that comes from an appreciation of the wide range of efficacies different vaccines have. One thing that often gets lost in these conversations is how effectiveness works. A flu shot isn’t all-or-nothing like a seatbelt. It sometimes prevents flu completely, sometimes it just makes your case shorter and less dangerous, and sometimes it misses because the virus changed after the vaccine was made. Even “partial protection” means fewer ER visits, fewer deaths, and fewer days of missed work and school across the population.
Doctors aren’t pretending it’s perfect. They're generally trying to be transparent about the limits, but they also see, year after year, that communities with higher flu vaccination rates have less severe flu seasons. That’s why most physicians take it themselves (I take it every year).
So rather than being an example of “medicine gone wrong,” flu vaccine is a reminder of how science works in real time. We use the best available tool, we’re honest about its limits, and we keep improving.
Doctors aren’t pretending it’s perfect. They're generally trying to be transparent about the limits, but they also see, year after year, that communities with higher flu vaccination rates have less severe flu seasons. That’s why most physicians take it themselves (I take it every year).
So rather than being an example of “medicine gone wrong,” flu vaccine is a reminder of how science works in real time. We use the best available tool, we’re honest about its limits, and we keep improving.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 10:55 pm to Flats
quote:
So the average Joe today, in your mind, has the same understanding of biology as someone living 200 years ago. They may not want you to inject Ebola infected blood into their arm, but if you tell them to snort it they don't know any better and they'll happily do so.
Are you serious? Do you really have that much of a God complex?
No, I have read histories of the anti-vaccination movement. They have the same exact arguments today that they had 200 years ago with the major exception of previous generations arguing that vaccinations were "against God's will" (or plan, etc.) and now they're the related "they're against nature, unnatural", etc. There is a lot of scientific verbiage in RFK and Mercola and these cats, but that's superficial. They don't understand it. It's for signaling purposes.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 11:00 pm to VoxDawg
Ahh I remember back when anti-vaxxers were beanie wearing, lesbian tree huggers. Now it’s the right wing. Time really is a flat circle.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 11:01 pm to GreatPumpkin
quote:
I detest the COVID vaccine and all the coercive activity that went with it. I’m afraid some are going to conflate that with worthwhile vaccines that have a proper risk reward.
Someone here has a brain.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 11:04 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
A patient cured is a customer lost.
Seems like vaccines have done exactly that: eradicated diseases and, gosh darn it, cost us customer!
Thanks to the antivaxxers, business will be booming here shortly!
Posted on 9/3/25 at 11:05 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Doctors aren’t pretending it’s perfect.
Now do Covid.
And do doctors use the same language with their patients that’s used here? It’s not really effective enough to mandate it but there isn’t much downside? I’ve missed those PSAs.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 11:06 pm to onmymedicalgrind
It’s also not a bad thing that people are free thinking, researching it more than ever, and making their own decisions. I’m not anti vax but I certainly don’t like govt regulation, especially mandates of any kind medically.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 11:07 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
No, I have read histories of the anti-vaccination movement. They have the same exact arguments today that they had 200 years ago with the major exception of previous generations arguing that vaccinations were "against God's will" (or plan, etc.) and now they're the related "they're against nature, unnatural", etc. There is a lot of scientific verbiage in RFK and Mercola and these cats, but that's superficial. They don't understand it. It's for signaling purposes.
What does that have to do with the delivery method?
Posted on 9/3/25 at 11:07 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
You gotta remember that these people are simple ranters. People of the land. The common clay of the Poli Board. You know... morons.
They really are just village idiots with internet access.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 11:22 pm to Flats
There's been a fear of contamination of vaccines by injection from the beginning. Here's a cartoon of people being turned into cows by the original cowpox jab:
These fearful stories about the vaccine needle have been there from the beginning, whether it was 18th-century cartoons like this, 19th-century rumors of doctors experimenting on the poor, or 20th-century tales of dirty school needles. These weren’t just medical anxieties, but folklore about invasion and contamination.
In the internet age, it's still around and those same needle fears reappear in memes, TikToks, and conspiracies about “the jab” hiding chips or mRNA changing your DNA, poisoning you, etc. What once spread slowly through gossip now travels instantly across global networks. Today’s online conspiracies are just the old folklore of the needle, updated for the digital age.
These fearful stories about the vaccine needle have been there from the beginning, whether it was 18th-century cartoons like this, 19th-century rumors of doctors experimenting on the poor, or 20th-century tales of dirty school needles. These weren’t just medical anxieties, but folklore about invasion and contamination.
In the internet age, it's still around and those same needle fears reappear in memes, TikToks, and conspiracies about “the jab” hiding chips or mRNA changing your DNA, poisoning you, etc. What once spread slowly through gossip now travels instantly across global networks. Today’s online conspiracies are just the old folklore of the needle, updated for the digital age.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 11:33 pm to Flats
quote:
Now do Covid.
And do doctors use the same language with their patients that’s used here? It’s not really effective enough to mandate it but there isn’t much downside? I’ve missed those PSAs.
Not exactly. We've been talking policy & politics. When I’m talking with patients, the question usually isn’t “should this be mandated?” but “what does this mean for me and my family?” For COVID vaccines, the honest answer is that they’re not perfect shields against catching the virus, but they do make severe illness, hospitalization, and long-term complications much less likely. That’s the same kind of risk-reduction logic people accept when they're using car seats for their kids or buy a smoke alarm. It's not flawless, but a lot better than rolling the dice unprotected.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 11:34 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
TigerDoc
Imagine this wackadoodle space cadet walking into your exam room.
Posted on 9/3/25 at 11:36 pm to Errerrerrwere
Still driving to Florida to visit your kids or do they hate you now, baw?
Popular
Back to top



1




