Text 28673, 159 rader
Skriven 2009-03-07 00:12:28 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
  Kommentar till text 28533 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Lucky dogs
==================
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Robert Bashe on Thursday March 05 2009 at 12:32:

MV>>> That was very unfortunate for your grandfather, but dying from
MV>>> influenza is not inheritable as far as I know. Your reaction is
MV>>> understandable but illogical.

RB>> Understandable and logical.

MV> Bringing your grandfather's misfortune into the equation is illogical
MV> as that has no effect on your chances.

So you figure there will never be another influenza pandemic? One in which, as
is usual, the older die first?

RB>> It's not a question of inheritance, but of common sense. I'm in a
RB>> risk group (age, lung problems) and don't need any further problems.

MV> Ah, THAT is something else. THAT is a factor that you should take into
MV> account. But it has nothing to do with your grandfather.

Only insofar as I realize what happened in 1918 can still happen today. Please,
give me one reason why such is impossible. I'd be grateful to hear it.

RB>> Incidently, the "experts" consider a new pandemic overdue, and anyone
RB>> who is not vaccinated has a higher risk than those who were. Laugh
RB>> all you want,

MV> I am not laughing. But I do wish to point out that predicting the
MV> future is extremely difficult and my guess is that these experts are
MV> no better in predicting the future than the experts that did not
MV> predict the financial crisis we are in now.

Maybe. Do YOU want to take the chance that they're wrong, at the risk of YOUR
life?

MV> I also wish to point out that he problem with flu virusses is that hey
MV> mutate so quickly, and you can not make the vaccin until you have a
MV> sample of the virus itself. So the inoculation programme is always a
MV> step behind. It will not protect you against the next mutation and the
MV> next mutation will be probably be the one that emerges in the next flu
MV> wave.

Although that is partly true, a vaccination WILL reduce the severity of the the
infection even if it doesn't prevent it. If that's enough to save your life,
isn't that worth it?

RB>> I'm sure my grandfather and the millions who died with him did too -
RB>> beforehand.

MV> There we go again. it was almost a century ago that your grandfather
MV> died. Today we are far better equipped to deal with these kind of
MV> situations. Your reaction is emotional, not rational.

Unfortunately rational. Did you see what happened when anthrax spores were
released after 9/11 in the States. Total chaos, total panic, never a real
resolution. Now tell me _that_ was "emotional".

MV>>> When I was a child I was inocculated against smallpox. Every child
MV>>> from my generation was inocculated against smallpox. The
MV>>> inocculation carried a one in thousand chance of getting meningitis.
MV>>> Some thirty years ago, they stopped inocculating every child as the
MV>>> protection against smallpoxe was considered to no longer outway the
MV>>> risk of meningitis.

RB>> Thirty years ago, the WHO declared smallpox eradicated from the earth
RB>> and _that_ is the reason people are no longer vaccinated.

MV> No, it is the reason the chance of getting the disease has dropped to
MV> near zero and so the risk balance has shifted.

NO to your "no". According to WHO, smallpox does not exist anymore.

RB>> The virus is only kept, to my knowledge, in laboratories in the USA
RB>> and Russia - with constant discussion whether it should not be
RB>> destroyed completely.

MV> It may be a good idea to keep it for while. How can one really be sure
MV> that a disease has totally been eradicated?

That is the usual reason given for keeping the virus - that, and the
possibility of using it as a biological weapon in future. That, in fact, was
the reason for isolating and storing the virus in the first place.

MV> When I was a student in the 60ties, every student was tested for
MV> tuberculosis every year. (Mantoux). In fact an entire branch of the
MV> health system was dedicated to tuberculosis. It was disbanded some 30
MV> years ago as tuberculosis was considered to be "eradicated". That was
MV> a mistake, Tuberculosis is back.

TB was never "eradicated", any more than syphillis was, or the common cold. If
the paret of the health system dealing with was disbanded, it was a purely
financial action. There is less TB in western countries nowadays (but don't ask
about AIDS sufferers), but on a worldwide basis it's either the first or the
second greatest killer around (the other would be malaria).

MV>>> Over here the influnza inocculation is offered to anyone over 60 and
MV>>> high risk groups like diabetes ect. For young, healthy people the
MV>>> the balance of risk is considered not to swing to the pro side.

RB>> The problem is that the 1918 pandemic killed _mainly_ young, healthy
RB>> people. Read up on it in Wikepedia: it's interesting to see why the
RB>> young, with good immune systems, were mainly affected.

MV> Almost a century ago. Things were different then....

Human metabolism was different then? Very surprising for me. Read the
explanation of why mainly _young_ people with strong immune systems died. Older
people didn't, or at least not as often. It's worth considering.

MV>>> Well, everyone has to make his own choice....

RB>> Indeed. The only problem is that you only know whether you were right
RB>> afterwards, and then there's no turning back. My personal attitude is
RB>> that this "vaccination risk" business is more panic spreading than
RB>> fact,

MV> What about that expert prediction than another pandemic is due? How do
MV> you know that is not a hype spread by he pharmaceutical industry?

Afterwards all of us are smarter. Do you want to risk YOUR life that the
"experts" are wrong this time?

RB>> P.S. I once hesitated, thinking as you do, to have my son vaccinated
RB>> against whooping cough. As a result he suffered for nearly four years
RB>> before the symptoms finally disappeared. That's another reason I
RB>> don't share your attitude.

MV> "My attitude"? You may have missed it, but I *took*  the flu injection
MV> last year. But contrary to you I do not think that "if it does not
MV> help, it does not harm either." I know that I am weighing one risk
MV> against another. And I know that I am basically gambling because I do
MV> not really know how big the risks are in my specific case.

Your attitude appeared to be do nothing and take the risk. If I misinterpreted
you, I'm sorry.

MV> Regarding whooping cough, the protection is not 100% and not forever.
MV> I was inoculated when i was young, but five years ago I caught it
MV> nevertheless. Took me the best part of a year to recover...

Lousy luck, although you're lucky that it only took a year to recover. My son
was still coughing 3 years after he went through the acute phase. Incidently,
_I_ was vaccinated against whooping cough and many other things in an era when
people were not as hysterical as they are today, and luckily only caught the
usual childhood diseases.

MV> And right now i am recovering form a severe cold. yes i know it is not
MV> flu and I am am not going to die of it. But I felt very bad yesterday,
MV> could hardly think and I needed a bucket under my nose. It will be
MV> over in a few days, so I will just ride it out.

Then all I can do is wish you fast improvement. I know myself how miserable you
feel in that situation. Forget fido and read a good book, if you can even
concentrate on reading. Answer - if you want - when you feel better.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)