[flagged]
> Perhaps the only reason why flu is harmless is because we don't fight it?
The flu has been fought with vaccines for decades.
Still, it mutates constantly and the vaccine producers guess which strains will be dominant. Like s coin flip, they guess right or wrong. The topic of the article means that they may not have to guess.
> ...antibiotic resistance issues we are facing due to dishing out antibiotics...
Vaccines and antibiotics are two completely different things. One is preventative, other is for acute care of a bacterial infection.
> Other than very old and frail people it's stupid to vaccinate against something that harms 0% non-old and non-weak population.
Vaccine of a healthy person slows transmission to elderly and immunocompromised. And reduces the chances of feeling really shitty and missing school or work for several days.
It's sad to dismiss something because it doesn't benefit "me", without considering how it may benefit "us" as a community.
At the same time there was and still is hardcore political propaganda to divide us into "us" and "them" camps on topics like this. It makes everyone on both sides more easily controlled and manipulated. Being through with "us" puts you into the "them" camp and your decision is equally shaped by the other side of the same propaganda. Are you really looking out for "me" or serving someone else's agenda just the way they want you to?
One can decide to skip vaccines and still watch out for their neighbors, they aren't mutually exclusive.
Camus' book The Rebel is a fascinating read on the topic. This quote stuck with me over the years:
"Every revolutionary ends by becoming either an oppressor or a heretic. In the purely historical universe that they have chosen, rebellion and revolution end in the same dilemma: either police rule or insanity."
IOW, there are two kind of science. There is the science we have learnt to depend on. And then there is reality, liars and media.
Really seems a problem with many areas of modern society.
There are many examples in history (and in our modern world) where doing the "selfless" thing is just manipulation for serving someone else's interests first.
Religious leaders maintained power over society for ages by determining what was selfish behavior.
We likely cannot agree on a rule which always properly distinguishes between pursuing self interest for survival's sake versus crossing the line into harming others. Since we are forced to inhabit the same world, it's best to not disparage others for pursuing their own self interest as long as they aren't hurting you directly.
I would also note that major religions revolve on explaining the differences and providing a vantage for judging the boundaries between self interest and selfishness. The fact some selfish people exploit the ambiguities, or even the inefficiencies of selflessness does not obviate in any way the teaching of the religion. Just demonstrates that pursuing a selfless life doesn’t imply lack of critical thought.
The example was vaccination. Vaccine side effects are sometimes far more than minor inconveniences.
Failing to acknowledge this fact is disingenuous. You can blame selfishness, but there are many other explanations.
Unchecked ego is part of narcissism spectrum. We all have some of it. Extreme narcissism is a cancer in modern culture. Maybe that's what OP meant by poison.
Human society has a wide variety of cultural norms around this too. Being banished from the group into the wilderness was a death sentence in recent human history. It kept people in check and helped with survival of the group.
Now we have instant access to life's needs and wants to the point where we take each other for granted. Our independent spirit can be a curse if taken too far. It's part of our DNA to need each other. For example a newborn can die if unheld for too long.
Nit: this difference has nothing to do with antimicrobial resistance. If you're concerned about misinformation, at least get your facts right.
Antibiotics are a general purpose thing. Using them on trivial cases can increase antibiotic resistance which is bad for the cases where we really need antibiotics.
Vaccines are specific. You can't accrue "vaccine resistance" as a catch all thing by applying vaccines to everyone. You may create pressure for a virus to work around specific vaccines, but the only risk is that we will need to adjust the vaccine. Unlike with antibiotics where we really just need to try and find a new alternative.
Antibotics make a given person more resistant to the current version of the bacteria. Bacteria with a mutation that survives against that antibiotic will then become the dominant version because it massively out-competes the rest.
Vaccines make a given person more resistant to the version of the virus the vaccine was for. Viruses with a "vaccine escape" mutation will become the dominant version because it massively out-competes the rest.
Personally I think this is what happened with Delta. It was first identified in Oct 2020, but didn't become dominant until the vaccine rollouts, which it was better able to survive against.
Vaccines are specific to the thing they prevent.
That is not true. You're probably thinking of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which are not the only kind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad-spectrum_antibiotic
The fact that there are other more niche types of antibiotics doesn't materially change anything about the argument being made here.
Exactly. Have you not heard all the stuff about "vaccine-escape" variants of sars-cov-2? This is what we're talking about.
> You can't accrue "vaccine resistance" as a catch all thing by applying vaccines to everyone.
Actually, you can. It's just evolutionary pressure after all, and that's something both bacteria and viruses are subject to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_resistance#Virus...
Also, you have linked to a section on antivirals. These are different from vaccines.
You're the only one who suggested this, and I assumed you knew enough to give your ambigious statement the benefit of the doubt. I'm guessing your were confused due to the misunderstanding about general-purpose antibiotics.
There are many, not just one, for the different strains of flu. The yearly shots include only a small subset, the ones predicted to be most prevalent in the coming flu season, because of manufacturing costs/limitations and compatibility.
>>> Vaccines and antibiotics are two completely different things. One is preventative, other is for acute care of a bacterial infection.
>> this difference [preventative vs acute care] has nothing to do with antimicrobial resistance
> When did they make such a claim?
Right there in the parent comment. Ctrl-F might help?
One of my friends older sisters, in her late 20's came down with the flu at night, then in the morning didn't go to school (she was a teacher) b/c she was sick. She went to the hospital that evening and was dead before midnight from inflammation of the heart caused by the Flu.
We already have flu vaccines. The article is about a different type of vaccine for the flu.
In the history of vaccination, has this ever happened?
What has happened is resistance to medicine. Vaccines reduce the opportunity for pathogens to be exposed to drugs by reducing the incidence and severity of illness.
It’s fine to take time to make informed medical decisions. But if your concern is resistance, vaccines are a friend.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease#Prevention
It seems to be related to "leaky" vaccines.
The polio vaccines aren't "leaky", but we are seeing increasing problems with oral-vaccine-derived polio now: https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2... - there are more cases of this than of "wild" polio nowadays.
Non-sterilising polio vaccines prevent illness but not infection and re-transmission. OPV is the one that sterilises.
An effective vaccine reduces antibiotic resistance pressures, since fewer people are taking antibiotics.
For example if 100 people get sick vs 10, the number of viral particles and mutations you can expect increases tenfold and the risk of one of those mutations being dangerous increases as well.
What you’re witnessing is a great reckoning for the scientific community. We’ll see if the orthodoxy still has the faculties to deliver truth with time. I think the community has been corrupted.
> Perhaps the only reason why flu is harmless is because we don't fight it?
Without providing any evidence that viruses tend to become more dangerous when we combat them is anti-science. It's like saying: What if the earth is flat?
Consider successful viral eradication campaigns like smallpox or polio. There's no indication that smallpox became "super smallpox" as it was about to be eradicated. Nor is there a reason to think this would happen based on what we know about how viruses work. It's pure fear mongering on the basis of nothing at all.
Edit: There's so much wrong with the original post here. Not only is the flu sometimes deadly, as others have pointed out, but we already fight the flu with seasonal flu vaccines. Indeed, they seem to have a strong protective effect[1]. The flu doesn't seem to be getting stronger as a result any of this.
I see the opposite here, it's another take of outrage porn based on misinformation.
Good science would be having a hypothesis and doing scientific research on it. Science is based on hypothesis. It rarely gets to 100% but does work off of statistical significance. Whereas conspiracy theory regurgitation is based on opinion and story telling and does little to nothing to move science forward.
Let’s see how it unfolds. Most of us can’t do the science ourselves, but we can ask questions and observe.