Hacker News Reader

Comment by DenisM | Hacker News Reader

Because flu is painful and takes days out of your life, while the shot is (relatively) painless and takes 15 minutes out of your Walgreens shopping time?

The flu shot cuts down infection probability by 2/3. If a given unvaccinated person gets flu 6 years out of 10, that same person with vaccination would only get sick 2 years out of 10. This is a huge difference.

Whether they used last year's strain or any other method is immaterial so long as it delivers the 2/3 reduction.

View on HN

That seems very short sighted in evolutionary terms. Guns, Germs, and Steel has served to give me a bit of trepidation about avoiding sickness for convenience sake.

Okay. Which diseases are you willing to brave to facilitate the continuous evolution of mankind? Flu? Hepatitis-C? Polio?

We have a real vaccine for polio that is 99% effective after three doses.

So?

And doesn't have to be taken year after year for new strains of polio, filling your immunological memory with outdated junk.

So, apples and oranges.

There are reasons to have reservations about flu shots that do not apply to polio and such.

> filling your immunological memory with outdated junk.

you have no idea what you are talking about.

So, enlighten me, immunologist.

What purpose is currently served in your body by the imprint created by a flu shot that you had seven years ago (at which time it was 60% effective at best to begin with)?

I didn't mean to offend. I'm a historian so I tend to think in blocks of time. I often miss the moment. It is a failing. I should have thought before I posted.

“ If a given unvaccinated person gets flu 6 years out of 10,”

6 years out of ten? Dude, the ppl around you are not washing their hands!

And you must be riding the public transit system instead of driving or taking the bike.

Yes, all you have to do is wash your hands and no more flu. /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com