Im here to discute our newest desease, the flew(H1N1), and it vaccine. My opinion its not to take because its a normal flew, the only thing different is that it has killed some people, mostly old people. I mean, isnt better to get the flew then our boy gets strong to fight the desease ?I mean here in Portugal, they are alredy injecting people with the vaccines, wath i think is an error. Coment Please.
I believe this is just an ordinary flu that everyone is making too much commotion about. I mean, people die every year from seasonal flu, so what's different between H1N1 and seasonal. Also, we make a big hype about every type of flu. When bird flu cam out, everyone went into a panic, but no harm was done. So I think we are just over reacting... as we always do.
RE: Flu: it's being a bit over-reacted to and over-protected against, but that's because it's a new flu and it's stronger than the normal influenza. being stronger, we would believe it has the ability to do more damage, and since we don't know very much about it we have to overreact. if we under-react, then it's going to be very hard to defend against; moreover, if we over-react, then we have the ability to contain it
RE: Vaccine: solely a good thing. great for the elderly, the young, mothers, and those with inflictions that enhance the danger of flu (ie: Leukemia). i know someone here is going to say somehthing about it being an agent of death and some secretive plan to kill the world, but hey-- people say that every year, and every year there aren't mass murderers sticking people with needles.
Second, don't type in bold text unless you need to, it doesn't make you heard even more.
Thanks for answering the question ^_^
The vaccine is quite a good thing, however i don't think it was handled well. The whole rush-to-get-it idea was completely stupid on the government's part; it should have been distributed by sector/street.
the problem with that is that in one neighborhood there may be 90% elderly/babies and children/mothers and in another neighborhood there may be 90% healthy 20-40 year olds.
and distributing scarce vaccines to healthy strappin' young men would be "completely stupid[er] on the government's part"
the problem with that is that in one neighborhood there may be 90% elderly/babies and children/mothers and in another neighborhood there may be 90% healthy 20-40 year olds.
and distributing scarce vaccines to healthy strappin' young men would be "completely stupid[er] on the government's part"
Take the h1n1 vaccine for example. In my community, it was first delivered to children with disabilities/elders. This is wrong in my opinion, and this is where my "cold heartedness" factor comes in. Thinking towards the future, who really deserves the vaccine? An extremely autistic person whom will most likely never amount to much, or a smart child, who may one day become a successful billionaire. Let's say that Child "A", a regular child, has not been vaccinated and receives h1n1. He later dies. At that same time, Child "B", a severely autistic kid whom has received the vaccine, is alive and well. Child "B" goes on with his life, sitting in his home day after day, until he dies of old age. Does that same fair? To me, it seems like a waste of life. I would rather have a living, healthy child than a living, autistic child; would you not say it's more beneficial?
^taken from thread^
child B is given the vaccine because the autistic are more likely to get the virus, and when they have the virus they are much more likely to die. also, if correct action is taken when child A gets the virus, he won't die, but child B could.
they have to have 'coldheartedness' giving out the vaccine. it's a deal of numbers and statistics, and if they don't help those who are statistically at a larger disadvantage without a vaccine, then they have failed at their goal.
child B is given the vaccine because the autistic are more likely to get the virus, and when they have the virus they are much more likely to die. also, if correct action is taken when child A gets the virus, he won't die, but child B could.
I live in an incredible small community in the middle of nowhere. we have to send to people out to get x-rays. If anyone were to get a serious case of h1n1, they would die, no matter what. My point is that how would an disabled person getting the vaccine first be more beneficial to life in the long run? Sure, they may both live, but what if Child "A" did not?
My point is that how would an disabled person getting the vaccine first be more beneficial to life in the long run? Sure, they may both live, but what if Child "A" did not?
then it would be an unfortunate chance event. the very large percentage chance says that the normal child will live with the virus and it won't be serious, and that the autistic child will have a serious problem with getting the flu.
you don't understand the concept that we can't pick and choose the better-off people to get the vaccines because that's useless. statistically, more lives are saved with those who are worst off are given vaccines. also, i don't appreciate your Social Darwinist ways.
you don't understand the concept that we can't pick and choose the better-off people to get the vaccines because that's useless. statistically, more lives are saved with those who are worst off are given vaccines. also, i don't appreciate your Social Darwinist ways.
I don't see what's wrong with Darwinism. Is it not a truthful way of thinking? It seems reasonable, in all respect.
