October 7, 2004
From the desk of Jane Galt:Public-minded policy
Question for those of us with mild-asthma: do we or don't we?
I'm talking, of course, about the flu shot.
We're supposed to get them, because flu in someone with compromised lungs is no fun. On the other hand, I've had the flu, and my asthma was bad, but not hospital bad. On the third hand, I almost died once from an unlucky confluence of cigarette smoke and a pitcher of margaritas; you never know what might get you. On the fourth hand, there are a lot of people out there with much higher risk than me.
To hell with it; I've decided not to get the flu shot so that other people who really need it will be sure to have some available. But I'd better not see any of you healthy people sucking up their flu vaccine.
Posted by Jane Galt at October 7, 2004 12:35 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksI would encourage frequent fliers to get flu shots, healthy or not. The last thing we want is to have the flu hopscotch around the country.
I too have mild asthma, my plan is to wait and see how many folks take advantage of the shots first. I remember a few years ago (not that there was a shortage then), that only a few folks took advantage of the shots. If we head into December and January and they still have tons of vaccines available, I'll get mine then.
I have mild asthma, (daily dose of Cingulair) and I have never taken the flu shot. I usually don't get the flu, but every couple of years I do.
I would recommend not getting the flu-shot, after all, you're a medical oddity already, what with the four hands and all...
Speaking or margaritas, a lot of preserved juices (Rose's lime juice, etc) have a good bit of sulfur dioxide in them, which is a strong asthma trigger in many sufferers. One sip of that and I'm wheezing, even though I smoke a pack a day.
There is no sane reason not to get a flu shot, unless you are allergic to it. Not to be paranoid, but we don't know when a really killer strain of flu may rear it's head again (as in 1918).
What's with these altruistic musings? I though you were an objectivist?
I don't remember having problems with the supply of flu shots before we federalized the supply to make sure all the "children" got them in the mid-90's.
Anytime something has to be rationed, it's a pretty good bet that some dumb government action is behind it all.
If we get a 1918-style flu and this nonsense is still going on, I wonder what the reaction will be afterward...
Have you considered the nasal spray, FluMist? It's a live (but attenuated, i.e. weak) virus, so it's not recommended for those most at risk. I don't know if mild asthma counts or not. But any healthy person that wants to be vaccinated could try that. It's more expensive and insurance may or may not cover it (but mine did last year). "Mist" sounds better than it really is. If the person who gives it to you doesn't do it well, it can be somewhat more like water up your nose, but no worse than a needle jab.
If you want to be vaccinated and don't qualify as high risk, then consider this alternative. Since high risk don't get it, there's no risk you're taking it from them. And, although it's new and too soon to tell, it looks as if it might, if anything, be more effective than the shot.
Allit takes is one round of pneumonia (and I've had 2) to convince you to always get a flu shot to do whatever you can do to minimize respiratory distress. Yes, my asthma is mild and I'll have to elbow some healthy old lady out of the way to get my flu shot, but if I get sick I run the risk of complications.
Of course, it probably won't be like 1918, and you (and we) will be fine.
I spent three hours in a cramped facility last year getting my screaming 2-year old a flu shot for what was then considered a highly dangerous flu strain. A couple weeks later . . . not so much. And, being a standard-issue parent, I'll probably do it again.
Let it go, Jane. You're young and strong and the mist will almost certainly be plenty if you really want some protection.
Mike-
Even in 1918 you probably would have been fine..why worry at all?
250,000 to 500,000 people die each year from influenza worldwide each season. Granted, most of the deaths in industrialized countries are of people over 65, but that is still a heck of a death toll. People with conditions like asthma should be sure to get the exam. You should talk to your doctor about the pneumonia vaccine as well; it is good for life, IIRC, and I have had a lot fewer "colds" since I got it 4 years ago.
My father was a physician, and it standard procedure at the family thanksgiving get-together for everyone to line up for the shot. I can't imagine any rational argument against you (or anyone) getting the vaccine.
Why do you think that anyone else is more deserving of it than YOU?
Doesn't the market break down if we fail to act in a self-interested manner?
I got a flu shot for the first time ever last year. Though I rarely get sick, I'm never going without again. Having it was like having a force field around me, no longer did I have to fear the ill and their oozings.
Lev,
Maybe you missed it, but approx. 50 million doses were contaminated in the manufacturer's factory in the UK, so the US will have almost half of the doses it needs. So, for those of us who are in the habit of getting flu shots every season, the question becomes, do I really need it or will my getting it deprive someone who needs it worse from getting one?
Me, I'm going to let my doctor decide what category I belong in.
The flu shots protect against whatever particular strains that the manufacturers think will be prevalent at the time. They DON'T protect against all variants of the flu. If something nasty like the "Spanish flu" of 1918 were to appear again out of nowhere your flu shot of this year wouldn't do a damn thing to protect you.
As for me, I avoid flu shots, as I have known far too many people who get very sick as a result of them. Yes, I know, the shots don't really give them the flu, as some claim, they just give them all the SYMPTOMS of the flu. How comforting. The only real reason I dread the flu is precisely because of the symptoms.
And as for pneumonia, I may be wrong here but I understand that there are very good vacines now for that. The flu rarely kills anyone, its the secondary bacterial infections like pneumonia that cause most of the fatalities.
The flu shot doesn't "give the symptoms" of the flu, it fakes the immune system into creating antibodies for the real flu. If one's immune system is particularly bad, that process will make you feel bad. Imagine what the real flu would do to someone who reacted that badly to a mere vaccine?
Does it matter what actually does the killing, if it is the flu that started it? That's sort of like saying that HIV doesn't kill people, the symptoms do. Techinically correct at the expense of the actual point.
The virulence of the 1918-19 flu pandemic may have been exacerbated by the end of the first world war. Men in the trenches probably had lowered immunity due to their physically exhausted condition and poor living conditions. The return home of these men provided a vector for the spread of the flu.
Yes, there is a pneumonia vaccine, and for most people, you only need one shot to protect you for life. As far as I know, there's no reason to prevent anyone who doesn't qualify for the flu shot to go ahead and get the pneumonia shot.
How is that we didn't deal with this last year once the flu season had ended? Doesn't everyone remember the massive shortage we had last year? and why were we relying on a British company for the bulk of the vaccine????
Funny, In Ontario we seem to have enough for everyone who wants one...
Sorry to repeat part of my previous post, but I'm not sure everyone got the main points:
1) FluMist (the flu vaccine spray) is not given to high risk cases, so a healthy person can be protected without getting a dose that would otherwise have gone to a high-risk person.
2) As far as they can tell so far, FluMist works strictly better than the shot. This appears to be because it is sprayed into the nose and thus affects the nasal tissue - the passage the flu germs would take to enter your system. Thus it may help you to kill the germs before they even take hold.
Last year, even with the shortage of the flu shots, many doses of FluMist were thrown out at the end of the year, presumably because people felt that the nasal spray was too expensive (and perhaps because it was new). But my children were thrilled at the idea of not getting a shot, so I didn't mind spending $60 per dose. And, to my surprise, my insurer covered it after all.
Given the shortages of the shot this year, insurers are likely to cover the spray again. Plus the price will come down if it's used extensively. And personally, I like to encourage this type of innovation. So, if you want an apparently more effective flu vaccination that does not involve a shot and does not take a dose that might have gone to someone at high risk, then consider this alternative.
The four of us are foregoing flu shots this year, unless a new source of vaccine shows up.
I myself won't go searching out the flu shot- there are other people who are at much higher risk than I am. But the mist sounds interesting.
Comments are Closed.