Originally Posted by Libertine

Now go google how long it stays alive on human skin

(hint: it's rather shorter)

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Wow that is retarded logic... But fuck ok, link us to it El brilliant medical student...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Originally Posted by Libertine

Originally Posted by Libertine

Originally Posted by Libertine

But eh, sticky... I believe you're now trying to argue that vaccinations don't slow down the spread of infections?

You do realize how idiotic that point is, right?

Originally Posted by Relentless

Which is LEAST likely to die?
A) Someone vaccinated and exposed to the virus
B) Someone not vaccinated and exposed to the virus
C) Someone vaccinated and not exposed to the virus
D) Someone not vaccinated and not exposed to the virus

I think anyone would agree D is the least likely.
I think anyone would agree C poses some risk that was not necessary
I think anyone would agree B poses some risk but is far from severe for most people
I think anyone would agree A poses some risk but is far from severe for most people

The above facts do not in any way change the basic point that it should be YOUR decision about your own body. You are arguing whether a person should get vaccinated and others are arguing that it isn't your decision to make unless it is your body being injected. Do you not see that those two points are not the same?

Originally Posted by Libertine

Actually, what I'm talking about is the risk of infecting others. If a nurse doesn't mind getting sick herself, that's no problem of mine. If a nurse infects an immunocompromised patient, on the other hand, it's a major problem.

This isn't about protecting people from their own choices. It's about protecting others from their choices.

If you're not willing to do everything within your power to ensure that you don't negatively affect the health of your patients, you should take a long, hard look at whether you should be working in a hospital.

Originally Posted by Libertine

Actually, what I'm talking about is the risk of infecting others. If a nurse doesn't mind getting sick herself, that's no problem of mine. If a nurse infects an immunocompromised patient, on the other hand, it's a major problem.

This isn't about protecting people from their own choices. It's about protecting others from their choices.

If you're not willing to do everything within your power to ensure that you don't negatively affect the health of your patients, you should take a long, hard look at whether you should be working in a hospital.

Originally Posted by theking

In the real world of US health care...a hospital has to attempt to protect itself from a law suite...and if staff at a hospital infected a patient with the flu which in turn caused the death of that patient and an attorney learned that the hospital had not attempted to protect its patients from staff in that the hospital did not require staff to immunize themselves...they would be open to a law suite.

Someone like Sticky would be the first in line to sue...if it was his loved one that had died because Staff had caused their death.

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Jesus did someone buy your nick recently? lol Kind of obvious. I've never sued anyone, and people get sick from other people in hospitals all the time. How exactly would one prove the infection came from staff and not another patient? Quite retarded...

Originally Posted by theking

Yes people get sick all of the time...and hospitals are frequently sued because of what happens to a patient while in the hospital. There are multiple scenarios where one could win a case that they were infected by staff (as has been proven before)...especially since in a civil case the evidence required is minimal...as differentiated from a criminal case. BTW...I said someone like you...not you...now didn't I?"

Originally Posted by Relentless

The above facts do not in any way change the basic point that it should be YOUR decision about your own body. You are arguing whether a person should get vaccinated and others are arguing that it isn't your decision to make unless it is your body being injected. Do you not see that those two points are not the same?

Originally Posted by woj

No one is "forced" to do anything... job requires it, you either do it, or you find another job... the requirements are pretty reasonable and are just designed to protect safety/health of the public...

just like a cook is required to wash his hands before handling food, just like a construction worker is required to wear a hard-hat or perhaps just like a pilot is required to pass random drug/alcohol tests...

You are probably thinking.. "yea, but that's different, washing hands poses no risk to anyone"... but sure it does, I wouldn't be surprised if more people die from some weird antibacterial soap allergic reaction than from flu vaccines...

Originally Posted by woj

No one is "forced" to do anything... job requires it, you either do it, or you find another job... the requirements are pretty reasonable and are just designed to protect safety/health of the public... just like a cook is required to wash his hands before handling food, just like a construction worker is required to wear a hard-hat or perhaps just like a pilot is required to pass random drug/alcohol tests... You are probably thinking.. "yea, but that's different, washing hands poses no risk to anyone"... but sure it does, I wouldn't be surprised if more people die from some weird antibacterial soap allergic reaction than from flu vaccines...

Originally Posted by Relentless

You are a nurse who has worked at a hospital for 29 years and need 30 to qualify for pension benefits. You are pregnant. Your 'choice' is to either get injected with something you believe will harm your embryo... which has not be thoroughly tested by any clinical trial involving pregnant women... or to forgo becoming fully vested for your pension.

U.S. Law will never allow that to happen.

Originally Posted by theking

You are a military nurse whom is pregnant with 29 years of service and have to have 30 years of service to receive 75% retirement pay as compared to 50% retirement pay with 29 years of service and you are told to be immunized with something you think may harm yourself or your baby...or forego being allowed to put in your 30...guess what...you will not only be fired but will receive a less than honorable discharge...and will be denied any retirement pay. So US law will allow it to happen. BTW...military personel are required to take so many shots it is not funny at all...and do so virtually every time they deploy.

Originally Posted by Relentless

VERY different example based on the agreement signed by the person when they enlisted.
Show me a nurse who signed an agreement with a hospital giving the hospital the right to inject him or her with anything....

Originally Posted by Relentless

You are a nurse who has worked at a hospital for 29 years and need 30 to qualify for pension benefits. You are pregnant. Your 'choice' is to either get injected with something you believe will harm your embryo... which has not be thoroughly tested by any clinical trial involving pregnant women... or to forgo becoming fully vested for your pension.

U.S. Law will never allow that to happen.

Originally Posted by woj

The problem in your argument is that it HAS been tested... Libertine can probably explain it better than me, but the way I understand it the chemical composition is the same each year, it's prepared exactly the same way, except they mix in different strains of the virus each year... so there is no scientific basis for believing that this year's batch is any less safe than the batches from the past...

but still, that's life, if department of health announces that food workers now need to wash their hands with a different soap than they did for the past 50 years... it's tough luck, whether you are pregnant or 2 months away from retirement, you are washing your hands with the new soap or are finding a new job...

Originally Posted by Libertine

But eh, sticky... I believe you're now trying to argue that vaccinations don't slow down the spread of infections?

You do realize how idiotic that point is, right?

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Ya you might have a point if the soap contained mercury and had the possibility of fucking your health up or killing you...

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

I love how you glossed over the fact that you were 100% wrong about the virus having next to no life span outside of a living organism. 2-8 hours is near instant huh?

Please tell all us non medical students how you were 100% right though....

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

I love how you glossed over the fact that you were 100% wrong about the virus having next to no life span outside of a living organism. 2-8 hours is near instant huh?

Please tell all us non medical students how you were 100% right though....

Originally Posted by Libertine

Jesus. You didn't even pass high school biology, did you?

The lifespan of viruses outside of living bodies is rather limited. Moreover, without cells to infect, the virus won't replicate.

By contrast, during an infection the body serves as a virus-replicating factory of sorts, copying the virus over and over again. Coughs and sneezes send droplets of mucus containing the virus flying around the room, providing a constant source of potential infections.

An infected person has a chance of transmitting the virus that is literally thousands of times higher than the chance of simply carrying the virus from an infected patient to an uninfected one.

Originally Posted by Libertine

While indirect infections are indeed a risk, they're limited by the fact that outside of a living body, the virus won't stay alive for all that long. Moreover, because the virus does not have any cells to use to replicate itself, no new viral particles are being created.

Originally Posted by Libertine

I figured there was no point in trying to debate something I didn't say. After all, while you said "near instant" I said "not for all that long". If you can't see the difference, you're an idiot, quite frankly. Then again, no news there.

For the record: 5-15 minutes on skin and up to a few hours on hard surfaces isn't all that long, especially when you consider that it isn't an on/off switch - the longer you wait, the more viral particles die off, with the minimum needed for any significant chance of infection being reached near the maximum time. Before that, however, chances already decrease rapidly as more and more particles die off.

But that aside, the reason I'll ignore you from now on is another (although related) one: you can't comprehend the very simple fact that infected people are the ones spreading the virus (both to people and objects), and that lowering the rate of infection will thus also lower the rate of new infections.

It's the reason I kept asking you whether you understood how the virus gets spread (a question which you failed to answer several times), and it's why you keep insisting on the incredibly dimwitted idea that vaccinations do not prevent the spread of infections among specifically localized groups of people.

Quite frankly, there is no point in talking with someone who doesn't understand that very, very simple mechanism even after having had it explained to him several times.

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

If 8 hours in a public place like a hospital waiting room that sees hundreds of patients a day is a short period of time, what is a long time? lol

To me a virus that has short term life is under an hour. 8 hours?


How many people could touch a surface in an 8 hour period and get the flu?

Anyways this whole thing is an over hyped bunch of media and government bullshit. Happens every few years... this or that happens, and we all get scared. OMG I could die.. I better hurry up and run out and spend x amount on this or that to stay safe.. rubes..

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Love how you downplay it. Funny all the government sites seem to say up to 8 hours. Yet you downplay it to 2 hours... Ok 2 hours in an ER room with say 50 people an hour entering and leaving. Using common pens and magazines to fill out forms. Sitting in chairs others have put their hands on, breathed on etc.

But whatever you are right IM sure...

Originally Posted by theking

I have and do get a flu shot every year...not because of any fear of death from the flu...but because I do not like being sick. If there was a shot for the common cold I would take it...once again because I do not like being sick with a cold. BTW...I have not had the flu since I was a kid.

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

If 8 hours in a public place like a hospital waiting room that sees hundreds of patients a day is a short period of time, what is a long time? lol

To me a virus that has short term life is under an hour. 8 hours?

How many people could touch a surface in an 8 hour period and get the flu?

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Anyways this whole thing is an over hyped bunch of media and government bullshit. Happens every few years... this or that happens, and we all get scared. OMG I could die.. I better hurry up and run out and spend x amount on this or that to stay safe.. rubes..

Originally Posted by Libertine

What's a long time? Hmm, let's see... perhaps the several days that an infected individual carries and spreads mucus carrying the virus to numerous other individuals and objects? You know, the thing we use vaccinations against?

Also, great job on not understanding that it's not an on/off switch, not understanding that lifetime depends on circumstances, and not understanding that the carrier liquid is not infinite.

One last attempt at making you understand that bit: we're not talking about a surface being "infected" for a specific amount of time. Rather, there is some liquid (mucus, most likely) containing viral particles on a surface. The moment that liquid leaves the body, environmental circumstances for the virus start changing up to the eventual point where no viral particles are left alive.

The longer it takes, the more that die off and the lower chances of infection being spread get. Moreover, every touch of the surface will actually remove some carrier liquid, thus transferring it to the person who touched it (and potentially infecting that person if he transfers it to his mucus membranes). This, however, leaves less to infect others. Because the mucus in question does not mysteriously multiply.

That's why you want to avoid having infected people working around the hospital: they go everywhere and leave a constant trail of fresh airborne droplets and smudged out mucus containing viral particles. If another one picks it up, the cycle starts over again, ensuring another few days of the virus being spread. Etc.

On the other hand, if all workers are vaccinated, the spread is somewhat contained. The waiting room is not a good place to be, but since workers wash their hands between patients (or should wash them, anyway) and probably won't get infected themselves, the virus has far less chance to be spread. Surfaces carrying infected mucus become safe again within a few hours, hands carrying infected mucus become safe again even quicker - basically, the virus dies off pretty quickly if it doesn't get the chance to infect workers going around the hospital.

Rather than functioning as a source of further infection for several days, workers at most function as passive superficial carriers for a very limited amount of time. If you cannot see how that is vastly preferable to having infected people everywhere... ugh.



Yeah, because the flu definitely doesn't kill many thousands of people a year, and it's never happened before that a strain of H1N1 killed tens of millions of people... OH WAIT.

Fucking idiot

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Ill make sure to bump this next year when it turns out that AGAIN it was all bs, and not much more, and WAY less of a problem than any other flu strain. Who can name 5 things that were supposed to be a population killer that turned out to be bullshit?

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Ill make sure to bump this next year when it turns out that AGAIN it was all bs, and not much more, and WAY less of a problem than any other flu strain. Who can name 5 things that were supposed to be a population killer that turned out to be bullshit?

Originally Posted by marketsmart

i can get the vaccine this week if i want, but i am torn.. i spoke to a dr friend of mine and he said the highest risk right now seems to be pregnant and very obese women as well as the immune surpressed.. they seem to get the sickest in his hospital... however, they have not had one death and although some of his patients have had to be heavily sedated and on a respirator for 10-14 days, they have all come out ok..

that seems to be worst case scenario outside of death of course which i am really not in the age group for that and i have a pretty strong immune system.

my concern with the vaccine is that this particular strain hasnt been tested for a long period of time.. although i think the majority of people will have no ill effects, i have to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit..

i will say this though, the medical community is worried about how this is multiplying and also about how thins virus will mutate..

maybe i will just flip a coin and let fate decide...

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Maybe they should force every patient to have the vaccine when they come through the door then? After all when they enter the hospital they could be infecting other patients. In order to have the right to be treated at a hospital it should be a mandatory vaccine injection. What do you think comrade?