Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mandatory H1N1 Vaccine For NY Health Workers Suspended

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the halliburton-must-be-involved dept.

Government 292

lunatick writes "The controversial mandatory swine flu vaccine for health care workers in NY has been suspended. While the reason for the suspension was stated as a shortage of the vaccine, a connection was found showing state Health Commissioner Richard F. Daines, M.D. and/or his wife may directly profit from the sale of the vaccine. Within hours of that connection being questioned on a radio show and the podcast being distributed, the announcement was made suspending the order. The health care community of NYS is petitioning the State Attorney general to investigate the connection."

cancel ×

292 comments

BUSTED! (4, Insightful)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 3 years ago | (#29858985)

H1N1 may indeed be pandemic in NYS, but it's still not as prevalent as corruption.

Re:BUSTED! (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859077)

However I don't see a reason why people shouldn't take the H1N1 vaccine. Ok the guy is making money from this... However Vaccines have a rather poor profit returns (expensive to make and sold with low margins) It would seem like if he was really corrupt he would do something with higher margins. However for someone who is interested in healthcare it wouldn't be surprising that he had investments in healthcare. Just like I am sure many of you have investments in Tech Companies...

Re:BUSTED! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859171)

However I don't see a reason why people shouldn't take the H1N1 vaccine.

People are dying from it in Sweden.

Re:BUSTED! (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859237)

However, have a look at how many others are dying from other strains of flu.

Re:BUSTED! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859283)

All people in Sweden who have died with the virus had severe previous health complications, and to be more precise complications causing immunodificiency. One person had, HIV, another had bone cancer. No perfectly healthy person, prior to the H1N1 infection, has died in Sweden. In those cases where teenages with no previous conditions had died, such as some cases around the world, it seems that the death rate is less than the common flu, though still occurring. And the cause of death seems to be due to pneumonia caused by a low immune system.

Re:BUSTED! (2, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859421)

Yes, flu tends to do that. We don't see mandatory vaccinations for every random strain of flu though.

Re:BUSTED! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859621)

How is this a problem?

Re:BUSTED! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859235)

The fear over 'vaccine profit conspiracy' is unfounded. Hit google scholar and look up vaccine efficacy.. you will find dozens of articles from a whole variety of scientists to support the value and efficacy of vaccines.

NY should fire anyone who doesn't want it because they will put their patients at risk; patients who deserve a better sense of health safety when their lives are at already at risk.

Re:BUSTED! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859627)

many people have complications of vaccines. This year a Redskins cheerleader was paralyzed after getting the flu shot.

Re:BUSTED! (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859699)

NY should fire anyone who doesn't want it because they will put their patients at risk; patients who deserve a better sense of health safety when their lives are at already at risk.

But if they get the vaccine and still get the flu, chances are they can't get any drugs to combat the flu because of a predicted shortage.

Re:BUSTED! (3, Insightful)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 3 years ago | (#29860089)

Ok the guy is making money from this... However Vaccines have a rather poor profit returns (expensive to make and sold with low margins) It would seem like if he was really corrupt he would do something with higher margins.

It's not hard to understand. If he did something "really corrupt" he would be fined or go to jail. If he does something marginally corrupt then morons will go around defending him saying he "isn't that corrupt" and then he'll get away with it. It's all about risk to reward ratios. Sure he won't make significant money but there is nearly no risk.

Thanks for being an enabler.

Re:BUSTED! (3, Interesting)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#29860147)

In Britain, apparently a large number of doctors and nurses are refusing to take the H1N1 vaccine. I don't understand the arguments for and against, but if the people who know about these things don't want it, why should I take it?

Re:BUSTED! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29860091)

'Vaccination' is a fraud.

http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen1.html

Please feel free to REBUT this talk. I won't hold my breath.

Unions are outraged! (0)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859035)

The NY State Unions are Outraged that their employer wants to keep its workforce healthy. My conspiracy theory is if the employees are healthy then the State can operate with less redundant staff meaning the Unions are making less money from dues.

I don't want to see Unions to end. However they are in need of serious reform. They are now working for themselves and not for the people.

Re:Unions are outraged! (4, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859097)

Isn't that sort of a defining aspect of a union?

Re:Unions are outraged! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859293)

Isn't that sort of a defining aspect of a union?

No. You are obviously ignorant if this is your belief. You should look at the history of unions in the US going back to the industrial revolution.

I think you've been hearing too much of what you want to hear and not the facts. There are bad things from unions, just as all organizations have corruption, but there are great things that unions have done as well.

A simple point to illustrate your ignorance: Is the US not a union of states in cooperation for a greater cause? Thanks for playing. Read and learn.

Re:Unions are outraged! (2, Informative)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859341)

What Unions did 100 years ago or even 25 years is not what they are doing now.

They had their time and and place, and the 21st century is not one of them. As an ex-union (Teamsters) employee, I will never support them again

Re:Unions are outraged! (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859937)

And I'd give anything for one right now. My current employer has dropped promised raises, dropped promised bonuses, and is currently telling us we can't use our grandfathered vacation (despite that being illegal in WA state- its pay or let us take it here). The reasons for needing them aren't as desperate as they were in the days of child labor and 16 hour workdays, but they aren't gone. Until greed is wiped out of humanity (in other words, never) management with power will always seek to abuse those who have less power, and will always need to be opposed in the only way workers can- by banding together.

Re:Unions are outraged! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859977)

You assume that unions and are exempt from greed.

Re:Unions are outraged! (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859921)

When have unions ever worked against the interests of their members?

I didn't say much, so there is lots of room to argue about what exactly I must have meant, but I'm pretty sure that working for the benefit of the members is a core goal of every union that has ever existed.

Re:Unions are outraged! (2, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859267)

The NY State Unions are Outraged that their employer wants to keep its workforce healthy

I am usually as anti-union as they come but this is case where I see them actually doing some good. We don't generally have the abusive employer-employee relationships we had in the past, but your employer insisting you inject something into your body certainly counts!

Its one of the most perverse violations of rights in recent times! We are supposed to be secure in the right of our person.

Now that this has been declared a federal emergency by the big O, I fully expect other groups of people to be "required" to be vaccinated. Well I say they can vaccinate my dead body because that's the only way I let them do it! You can be darn sure I will try and take as many of whatever agents attempt to force such on me down with me too. Anyone who tries to forcefully inject a bunch of heavy metal Mg in you deserves to be injected with some Pb at high velocity in my book!

Re:Unions are outraged! (4, Insightful)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859369)

If you have direct patient contact, you should be doing all you can to keep your patients from getting more sick. That means getting your vaccines and getting tests for certain diseases. Or do you think TB testing shouldn't be mandatory for front-line hospital workers as they are now?

Re:Unions are outraged! (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859619)

Question for you. Do you believe that the regular flu shout should be mandatory for "front-line hospital workers"?

Re:Unions are outraged! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859899)

There are multitudes of ways to protect a patient from exposure, from face masks to reverse isolation air exchange rooms to simply staying home while ill.

To demand vaccination out all the different means to reduce infection is an arbitrary line in the sand, most spoken by those who neither give patient care nor will bear any cost should any problems arise.

TB testing is different with respect to the laws associated with it (you can be quarantined in most states for refusing INH treatment) and is advocated as a means of tracing exposure and workman's comp. claims.

To put things in perspective, the Hepatitis B vaccine is not mandatory, even though at one time Hep. B represented one of the highest occupational risks of those who performed direct patient care.

In short, know what the fuck you are talking about instead of parroting useless asides of what someone else told you to think.

Re:Unions are outraged! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29860065)

Yeah and how economical are those "multitudes" of ways? We could stuff every patient in a plastic bubble, allowing only sterilized objects and air into them, but who's going to pay the cost for that? Also, how long after the symptoms of an illness have passed are you still infecting others? So much for your staying home idea. Vaccination is hardly arbitrary, it is the best compromise between scalability and efficacy that we currently have.

In short, know what the fuck you are talking about instead of parroting useless asides....

Re:Unions are outraged! (0)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859395)

Fine. If a patient dies due to Swine flu and you knew that the vaccine could have prevented them from geting infected by you then I say that you're liable and should be held accountable for your actions. Also Mg (Magnesium) isn't a heavy metal, Hg (Mercury) is and hasn't been used in the flu vaccines for years.

Re:Unions are outraged! (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859461)

I am usually as anti-union as they come

You send thugs with baseball bats to break up union meetings?

Damn...

Re:Unions are outraged! (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859545)

Alternatively, they are outraged that the State can force someone to accept an elective medical treatment that may violate their religious convictions or may simply be a case where they are not convinced of it's safety or that it's benefits outweigh the risks. It hardly matters who agrees or disagrees with their assessment, it's THEIR body, not the state's.

There are a lot of people who consider their own body the last refuge of personal freedom and have deep philosophical objections to it's violation by the state.

Notably a number of people who have already been voluntarily vaccinated have joind in objecting to it being mandatory. It's also worth considering that according to articles on the subject, health care workers are "notoriously non-compliant" with flu vaccination. That is, the people best equipped to understand the benefits and risks tend to opt against being vaccinated.

It's understandable considering that while the various other vaccines have years of safety record and a one time risk in trade for for decades of worthwhile protection, the flu shot is essentially new every year and not much good after that year.

It's interesting how with all of the pressure to get vaccinated we don't even hear a peep about mandatory sick leave, a measure that certainly has proven benefits and carries no medical risks AND is effective against any communicable disease (yes, many are communicable before symptoms are manifest, but most have some overlap between communicability and symptoms).

Re:Unions are outraged! (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859653)

Not to mention that some people are allergic to the flu shot. As it is made using eggs, anyone allergic to eggs can get a severe allergic reaction [wikipedia.org] to the flu shot, including death. Some how I doubt all hospital workers are not allergic to eggs.

typo (2, Informative)

matzahboy (1656011) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859061)

Just as an FYI, you have a typo in the title. "Manditory" should be "Mandatory"

Re:typo (2, Funny)

PocariSweat1991 (1651929) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859145)

Thanks for the clarification. I was horrified to think that chewable H1N1 vaccine was suspended.

Mandating vaccines... (4, Insightful)

Manip (656104) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859087)

I've read suggestions to make people (kids in particular) get vaccinations before but frankly I have never been comfortable with the concept. When you start telling people that they must put something foreign into their bodies at what point exactly does it stop?

Plus what happens if this vaccine turns out to have nasty side effects? Is the state who mandated it responsible or will they just wash their hands and say - "You had a choice!" That's what they tried to do after all the medication they made soliders take in the first gulf war turned out to have serious long term side effects.

Going into crazy paranoia zone here now, but how long until RFID chips (which have already been linked to cancer) will be mandatory for government employees for "security reasons?"

Re:Mandating vaccines... (3, Insightful)

Herkum01 (592704) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859193)

Yeah, I mean what if a doctor gets busy? It is not like if a doctor does not washes their hands between patients [firstthings.com] that nothing bad will come of it.

And everyone knows that a hospital worker getting sick is so much more important than the patient, especially those people who may have a weaken immune system because they are already sick.

Re:Mandating vaccines... (1)

ctmurray (1475885) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859259)

Currently they are recommending children with underlaying medical issues get vaccinated first (asthma, MD) and women in their third trimester. Both because they are those who are dying at the highest rates. All the reputable medical sites/doctors say the H1N1 vaccine will have the same risks as normal flu vaccine- as they are both made exactly the same way. There is nothing about this strain of virus that makes the vaccine more dangerous. They are even offering versions without the normal preservative (which contains a mercury adduct that has concerned some people).

Everyone adult I know who has gotten the H1N1 was infected from children (usually their kids).

Re:Mandating vaccines... (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859645)

Double the vaccinations = double the risk. They are for different antigens, so it's not just a double dose of the same thing.

Many naturally wonder how real the threat is considering how many months we've been told the sky is falling. Chicken Little has no place in risk/benefit analysis.

Re:Mandating vaccines... (2, Informative)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859913)

Many naturally wonder how real the threat is considering how many months we've been told the sky is falling.

Umm, dude, we haven't even entered the northern hemisphere flu season, yet, and we've already hit the average number of pediatric flu deaths for a normal year. Is the sky falling? No (you can blame the media, as always for perpetuating that idea). But there most definitely is cause for concern.

Re:Mandating vaccines... (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859405)

Alright, but if you get mumps orchitis because you refused to get the MMR vaccine, then we as a society shouldn't be obligated to treat your malady. Is that fair?

Re:Mandating vaccines... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859501)

The problem with socialism is that it cannot accept that. That's why we're already paying for preventable conditions like atherosclerosis via Medicare, and are trying like heck to pay for even more of it through health care "reform". The inability to leave individuals to fend for themselves, even when begged to by the individuals in question, is the authoritarian darkside of the socialist's goodwill.

Re:Mandating vaccines... (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859585)

Point noted. But we're talking about a communicable disease here. The point of vaccination is to prevent spread of the disease to vulnerable populations. Workers with direct patient contact in hospitals should be doing what they can to ensure that they themselves are not spreading disease!

Re:Mandating vaccines... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859577)

To hell with him getting mumps, what about when I get mumps because idiots who don't understand science made herd immunity meaningless?

Re:Mandating vaccines... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859463)

Going into crazy paranoia zone here now, but how long until RFID chips (which have already been linked to cancer) will be mandatory for government employees for "security reasons?"

I only found one study. That study was in Sept 2007, no news stories since then. Until it's confirmed by an independent study, I don't know if it's legitimate to say there is a link. Besides, RFID works using non-ionizing radiation (i.e. doesn't break molecules or DNA), not sure how there can be cancer, at least with the RF part.

Re:Mandating vaccines... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859467)

I have had the flu shot and I am perfectly fine. I applaud our government for stepping forward to save us all form this horrible bug and I will never, ever bad-mouth them again. In fact I will voluntarily pay double my income tax for the rest of my life to allow them to continue their wonderful work

Re:Mandating vaccines... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859479)

you dear boy, have been blessed with good health all your life, as some who caught all diseases, even summer colds, I'm telling you, that if I get sick because someone doesn't want to get vaccinated and then coughs in my face, I'm going to cripple him. In kindergarten I got sick because someone didn't vaccinate their kid and brought some disease, 20 years later I'm fucking crippled, tin hat or not you are an idiot.

Re:Mandating vaccines... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859495)

I've read suggestions to make people (kids in particular) get vaccinations before but frankly I have never been comfortable with the concept. When you start telling people that they must put something foreign into their bodies at what point exactly does it stop?

If you don't like foreign substances in your body, don't eat :-) But vaccinations are a matter of science, not how you feel. Did you that vaccine rates and disease rates are inversely correlated? [scienceblogs.com] Germs and viruses don't care if it gives you the willies. And yes, vaccines have side effects, sometimes people die, but it is either that or smallpox. The danger isn't eliminated, you're just trading real danger for a one in a million risk.

Re:Mandating vaccines... (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859527)

Firstly, you have a say, ALWAYS. Governments aren't there to control the people (while you may let them, it's not the case), short of said governments tearing up constitutions and so forth you can always fight back.

Secondly, there are KNOWN side effects with this vaccine, they are clearly stated prior to vaccination (at least here in Australia) as required by law - just the same as all vaccines.

I really don't get where these paranoid delusions suggesting that the government is something to fear. Sure, they do some fucked up stuff, but you have to not let them get away with it. Hold them accountable, stand and fight. Sitting there and being scared of something that YOU control as a citizen is not really a smart way of doing things.

Re:Mandating vaccines... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859809)

Yours is a funny argument for an Australian to make. I hope you're still able to access Slashdot in a few years once the Australian Internet Classification Board has deemed it "unclassified". Maybe then you'll realize what has been happening in the last few years: a decentralized worldwide effort to concentrate power in the hands of corporations and governments. Nothing the people can do (short of an extremely lucky worldwide armed revolution) can stop it.

Re:Mandating vaccines... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859583)

OK, never mind, I found information on some older studies. I think it
s odd that there aren't any newer ones.

Re:Mandating vaccines... (1)

Kenz0r (900338) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859927)

I wouldn't even care if RFID chips CURED cancer, whether or not one goes underneath my skin should be my decision.
The very idea of mandatory chipping for people is revolting.

I agree with parent, encouraging people to take thoroughly tested vaccines that could stop a pandemic in its tracks is a good thing, but making it mandatory, that's a dangerous precendent.

Re:Mandating vaccines... (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#29860017)

It's only mandatory if you're working at a hospital, and this is hardly unprecedented. You might have a point if it were mandatory for the general population, but it's not...

Re:Mandating vaccines... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859983)

Actually, check out SOMARK technologies. An invisible, permanent ink which works as an RFID tag meant for livestock tracking.......

hunh? (4, Insightful)

Caffinated (38013) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859133)

So, the "scandal" here is that his wife works for Golman Sachs and that pharma stocks are overpriced? Somehow mandating that healthcare workers get vaccinated against a new flu is somehow a huge conspiracy to profit for them how? I recognize that the tin-foil-hat brigade has kicked onto high alert over H1N1 vaccination, but this is stupid. This is front page material how?

Re:hunh? (5, Informative)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859311)

TFA is claiming that mandating the flu vaccine would net quite a bit of profit for whatever pharmaceutical company manufactures them and since Goldman Sachs likely invests in said company, they'd stand to gain indirectly from the mandate and therefore so would the husband/wife pushing the flu mandate. But I agree with you. It looks like TFA's claims are a bit of a stretch. These employees work with people who are often immuno-compromised and getting infected with H1/N1 could kill them.

Re:hunh? (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859671)

It does point to an increasing problem when a large proportion of public officials have personal stakes in many of the firms that might be affected by decisions they make. The US Supreme Court has actually declined to take a few cases that they might otherwise have taken because too many justices held stock in one of the companies, meaning that they'd have to recuse themselves.

Re:hunh? (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859679)

That's a BIG stretch. That's like saying that a mayor who invests in anything shouldn't be allowed to pass a law that might improve the economy (heaven forbid!).

I'm all for requiring those holding significant political power to put their investments in some kind of a blind trust. I'm also all for declarations and avoidances of conflicts of interest.

However, the idea that anything that helps any company could be a conflict of interest because your wife works at a bank that may or may not invest in that company is REALLY far fetched. For all the guy knows Goldman might have invested in a major competitor to the company making the H1N1 vaccine and that they'll suffer as a result.

Consider the source (2, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859657)

It's a right-wing radio station.

Reading the site that is linked, they don't even have any tangible evidence that there is something going on. A lot of guilt by association innuendo, six degrees of separation connections, and 'what if' type questions.

The CDC says it's because of the shortage of the vaccine. I'll trust them, for the time being, over a biased right-wing radio station.

What's a 'manditory'? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859167)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Come on (0, Redundant)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859187)

"Manditory"? Really?

Has President Obama Taken the Vaccine? (0, Troll)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859257)

Has President Obama and other high-level politicians, powerful elites, etc, along with their families, taken the H1N1 vaccine?

If no, there's the answer right there regarding its safety.

Ron

Re:Has President Obama Taken the Vaccine? (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859425)

And if yes, then there is clear favouritism in giving limited supplies of a vaccine (currently enough to vaccinate around 10% of the population) to politicians first.

Re:Has President Obama Taken the Vaccine? (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859499)

President Obama was injected in a public display, but how can you be sure it was the same vaccine they are giving to everyone else.
The military are all required to get the flu injection, and this year the H1N1. Congress is optional, don't know if many did.

Re:Has President Obama Taken the Vaccine? (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859503)

He got a flu shot [washingtonpost.com] along with his family but it wasn't for H1/N1.

I'm awaiting advice on this... (0, Troll)

EsJay (879629) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859265)

...from world-renowned scientist Jenny McCarthy.

antivaxxers on slashdot (3, Interesting)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859303)

We've been seeing tons and tons of articles like this recently on slashdot. There's a consistent anti-vaccine slant on all of them. I'm guessing that there's some small group of antivaccine crazies who are active on the firehose, and they consistently vote up each other's stories.

Re:antivaxxers on slashdot (4, Funny)

Kozz (7764) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859477)

We've been seeing tons and tons of articles like this recently on slashdot. There's a consistent anti-vaccine slant on all of them. I'm guessing that there's some small group of antivaccine crazies who are active on the firehose, and they consistently vote up each other's stories.

You got it, man. It's a conspiracy!

attention: this post may contain excessive levels of irony.

Re:antivaxxers on slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859487)

Probably but I think it's more general than that. Currently there is a huge backlash against stuff like this and it includes a substantial part of the general population.

Frankly I think it's good that people are finally waking up to the widespread corruption and other shenanigans that have been plaguing human culture. Judges sentencing people for profit, prisons being run for profit, companies pushing unsafe drugs for profit, and all the other government and corporate corruption mostly tied to profit, etc, etc.

Personally I think some vaccinations should be mandatory. It makes sense for the things that can be pretty much completely wiped out (small pox, polio, etc). However, vaccines against the flu will never even make the smallest dent against the infection (in general). It just changes too often and there are way too many variants. On top of that, it just isn't a very bad disease. It's incredibly infectious but really not very strong (some people will die but people die every damn day from common bugs). That is why I don't think the flu vaccine should mandatory.

Re:antivaxxers on slashdot (4, Insightful)

SetupWeasel (54062) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859759)

Mandatory vaccines in hospitals make a lot of sense. You don't want a doctor or nurse showing up to work in the ICU and spreading the flu. It is really common sense. For those people who claimed that requiring a vaccine was some sort of invasion of their civil rights, most medical workers I know have to take a lot of vaccines when they start they start the job. Hell, I had a list of vaccines I had to have just to go to college.

As a health worker, your first responsibility is to your patients, and getting the flu shot is part of that.

Re:antivaxxers on slashdot (1)

skegg (666571) | more than 3 years ago | (#29860099)

I'm intrigued: what vaccines were you required to have for college?

Re:antivaxxers on slashdot (4, Insightful)

BACPro (206388) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859555)

How can you have a positive slant vaccine article?

"Man gets immunized, doesn't get the sniffles..."

Not very newsworthy.

Re:antivaxxers on slashdot (0)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859569)

So anyone who doesn't believe vaccines are the second coming is crazy and shouldn't be able to voice his views?

Re:antivaxxers on slashdot (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859741)

Understanding the science behind the vaccine, isn't the same thing as believing it's the 'second coming'. Anti-Vaxx idiots have every right to voice their views, no matter how crazy and dangerous they are, but the rest of us also have the right to voice ours.

Re:antivaxxers on slashdot (0)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859979)

Of course there's more than just the science behind the active ingredient of a vaccine. There's the other things intentionally added, those unintentionally added, quality control, and the actual result of injecting people with it, which can never be determined reliably by theory alone. I think most of the objections are to the latter, rather than how the active ingredient of a vaccine works.

Curious, But Pharmaceutical Company Names Are? (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859397)

In all the media hype there is not one word mentioned of the Pharmaceutical companies involved. Why? Could they be holding out for a better price? That's just good business isn't it? Has America traded its children's future for the promise from a Grinning Show Off with an out stretched hand? There to many dead to ignore these kinds of questions.

So (1, Insightful)

symes (835608) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859399)

Either H1N1 is so serious that we do need a vaccine. Or it's ok to delay vaccinations while we get the finances sorted out. Something smells. And speaking as someone who has had it... all I can say is that it really doesn't seem much worse than regular flu. My only conclusion is that there's a bunch of people making a whole load of money off our fears. Global financial meltdown, H1N1... what's next? We need to give up another few trillion to save ourselves from a plague of locusts? Oh... too late for that one...

The hypocrisy is amazing... (0, Flamebait)

IDtheTarget (1055608) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859429)

The same people who say that women must have free access to abortion, because they have the right to say what they do with their bodies, are now saying that NYS health care workers don't have the right to say what they do with their bodies with regards to a vaccine?

When I deployed to Iraq, I didn't want to take the anthrax vaccine, because the DoD were lying to us about it. They claimed that it was the same vaccine that veterinarians take. My wife is a veterinarian, and the shots they gave me were not what she gets.

I didn't want to take it, but I didn't have a choice. As a soldier, I don't have any rights over my own body. If the DoD says I have to take a vaccine, then I have to take it or face a courts martial. So I took the vaccine, and endured one of the known side effects: I had arthritis in both of my shoulders for over a year. I'm lucky that it's mostly gone now.

Why is it that liberals say that a woman has the right to decide whether or not she gets an abortion because it's her body, but say that health care workers don't have the right to decide whether or not they get vaccines, even though it's their body?????

Re:The hypocrisy is amazing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859567)

Because almost no one actually believes in principles anymore. They just use them for rhetorical purposes when it suits them, and discard them as soon as they stop being useful. If the government thought you owned your body, it would let you sell a kidney or an eyeball if you wanted. It would let you kill yourself, or contract with someone to have yourself killed. It would let you contract with whomever you determined was competent to act as your physician, and it would let you self-prescribe any medication as long as it did not recklessly endanger others. You know, like how you can do all of those with your car.

In other words... you pretty clearly aren't considered to own your own body.

Re:The hypocrisy is amazing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859599)

When I get sick and go to the Doctor, I don't have any reason to fear getting Swine Flu from a woman who just had an abortion.

Only on Slashdot, with its right wing lunatics can swine flu vaccine and abortion be used in the same sentence.

Re:The hypocrisy is amazing... (5, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859603)

I don't really see why you're conflating this with abortion, and then heaping the blame on liberals. It strikes me as very disingenuous to even compare the two things. You were vaccinated as an infant against diseases, do you also consider that to be a violation of your privacy rights? To me it doesn't seem like a bad idea to have health care workers, in a heavily populated city like New York, to be vaccinated against something they'll likely be exposed to.

To me this looks more like 'six degrees of separation' being made by a local right-wing radio station.

Re:The hypocrisy is amazing... (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859727)

If you believe that we should uphold the right of someone to control their own body then it is difficult to defend these rights for abortion but not the right to take or refuse vaccinations.

Re:The hypocrisy is amazing... (5, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859789)

It's not difficult at all. A woman receiving an abortion isn't working at a hospital where her abortion can spread to people with weakened immune systems.

Vaccinating people who are working at hospitals, who can spread a virus to everyone they come in contact with as part of their job, isn't in the same league with abortion at all.

You're acting like these are forced vaccinations to the population, and they're not. It seems to me that this is a very common sense thing to do, to keep a virus from being spread in a hospital...

Re:The hypocrisy is amazing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859933)

Don't complain when you get fired for refusing to take the vaccine. Whether someone gets an abortion or not has nothing to do with health of the surrounding population. However, if you spread the disease to me (and others) you and the health care company you work for are now directly liable for all the physical and emotional damage I suffer. All regulations and social contracts aside, no company is going to employ a worker that opens them up to (potentially) unlimited liability. But nice job trying to tie your anti-choice rhetoric into an individual rights argument.

Re:The hypocrisy is amazing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859903)

You were most likely circumcised as an infant, but what if you weren't and Daines decided AIDS was spreading too rapidly, and circumcision was shown to limit the spread of AIDS, therefore all uncircumcised males must report to the nurse's office for...treatment. Would that be OK?

I don't see it as hypocrisy or over-reaction, but a very valid attempt to avoid that slippery slope.

Re:The hypocrisy is amazing... (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859919)

Do alot of health care workers in NYC hospitals have unprotected sex with their patients? Slippery Slope arguments are bullshit, and this is a fine example of why.

The population isn't being forced in to taking the virus. This is only in regards to people working at hospitals, where they are exposed to the virus, and working around patients with weak immune systems.

Re:The hypocrisy is amazing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859675)

I'm a proud libtard, and support choice, and I recommend that people use informed consent and that we respect their choice not to vaccinate, and not work for mandatory vaccines.

And I use the same argument as you did, so thank you.

I believe in keeping the gov't off our bodies. So I support choice, and I do not support *many/most* mandatory vaccine programs.

Opt-in is okay. Opt-out is for spammers. Mandatory should be reserved for Ebola like situations.

And thanks for your service.

Re:The hypocrisy is amazing... (1)

SetupWeasel (54062) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859897)

You opt-in to working in a hospital where, unless you are a moron, you realize regulations like this can be made.

Re:The hypocrisy is amazing... (2, Insightful)

venicebeach (702856) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859705)

Because getting an abortion doesn't endanger anyone else.

The reason vaccinations are mandated is because each person serves as a potential vessel to spread the disease to many other people. Your choice of whether or not to take it is something that affects us all.

I agree we should have a choice about what goes into our bodies, but this is the reasoning, and its not without merit.

Re:The hypocrisy is amazing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859753)

I really agree here.

Just call me "pro choice" with regard to vaccination. That's fair enough.

Re:The hypocrisy is amazing... (1)

Have Brain Will Rent (1031664) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859769)

The same people who say that women must have free access to abortion, because they have the right to say what they do with their bodies, are now saying that NYS health care workers don't have the right to say what they do with their bodies with regards to a vaccine?

Well yes, but it's different - the workers aren't all women. Seriously that would be the first argument if they were - sexual discrimination.

Why is it that liberals say that a woman has the right to decide whether or not she gets an abortion because it's her body, but say that health care workers don't have the right to decide whether or not they get vaccines, even though it's their body?????

Because the lives of women are deemed to be more important than the lives of men? Again, seriously. Just look at the media (and mortality/injury statistics) and see what lives are given the most value and what lives are seen as more disposable. I've been waiting for feminists to start protesting the unequal treatment for a while now. I expect that will happen any day now.

Re:The hypocrisy is amazing... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859799)

Why is it that liberals say that a woman has the right to decide whether or not she gets an abortion because it's her body, but say that health care workers don't have the right to decide whether or not they get vaccines, even though it's their body?????

I don't think the comparison holds quite so simply. Abortion isn't a viral disease, the flu bug is something a health care worker can spread by getting infected before they're aware that they are infected. In that case, it's not just the health care worker's body, it's everyone they come in contact with, and a lot of those they come in contact with may have compromised immune systems. I don't think it's just a matter of washing, if you do get infected, your body becomes a walking factory for the virus.

Re:The hypocrisy is amazing... (1)

SetupWeasel (54062) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859861)

They chose to work in a hospital. Hospitals need to prevent the spread of disease to their already ill patients. This is common sense. Every health care contract should have an immunization clause, and if they don't, it needs to be put in. If you don't want the shot, you are free to quit.

How is that like abortion?

I don't have to get a shot, because I don't work in a hospital. But I also have asthma, and I'm not a moron. So I'm getting the shot.

Re:The hypocrisy is amazing... (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#29860005)

The same people who say that women must have free access to abortion, because they have the right to say what they do with their bodies, are now saying that NYS health care workers don't have the right to say what they do with their bodies with regards to a vaccine?

Yes, because these people chose to be health workers; there is no way to become on without making a deliberate decision to do so. If you don't like mandatory vaccination, then don't be a health worker.

Though I don't really understand the point. If a health worker wants to expose himself without vaccination, let him. With or without vaccination, a sick health care worker should not be working; having him at work while sick because "hey, I'm vaccinated" would be idiotic.

control over one's body vs. public health (2, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 3 years ago | (#29860115)

The same people who say that women must have free access to abortion, because they have the right to say what they do with their bodies, are now saying that NYS health care workers don't have the right to say what they do with their bodies with regards to a vaccine?

When a woman gets an abortion, only she and the fetus are affected.

When a health worker, WHO WORKES A JOB WHERE THEY WILL COME IN CONTACT WITH INFECTED PEOPLE, refuses to get a shot to prevent the spread of an infection...that affects their own health and potentially tens of thousands of people. That worker needs to be able to come into contact with patients, help them, and not get sick themselves, and not pass the illness onto others.

Furthermore, health workers are already required to get many vaccines. They knew that going into the job; when I worked at a hospital, we had to hand over medical records proving we'd been vaccinated (even though I didn't work with patients, if there is a public health emergency, they pull employees from other areas as needed. Even if it only to help push stretchers and take out the trash.) If you want the right to refuse a vaccine, DON'T WORK IN HEATHCARE.

This is, just as the top poster says, anti-vaccine hysteria from people who think their gut beats experts, research, fact. We're the only developed country that has this problem...the rest of the world, hell, even the Catholic church has accepted Evolution, yet nutjobs came out of the woodwork and demanded it's false and constantly challenge its teaching. Then we had the anti-global-warming nutjobs. Now it's anti-vaccine nutjobs.

What's next? Square Earth? We're the pivoting point of the universe? Why is it that it feels like only America has all the idiots who deny the obvious, proven, fact?

Vaccine Makers Probably Create New Flu Strains (0, Flamebait)

Bruha (412869) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859481)

I would not put it past these companies to create new flu strains and unleash them on the public, knowing sales would be generated. We've known about this strain since March 2009 and there are shortages of the vaccine so everyone is scrambling to buy it. One company in 2008 in it's SEC filing (sorry I do not recall it) claimed that they expected a 800% increase in antiviral sales in 2009 from government stockpiling.

and here's a gem.

"That the so-called swine flu was first observed in Mexico just at the same time Nicholas Sarkozy, president of France, was visiting there to announcement the establishment of a new French vaccine plant in Mexico, has to be more than coincidence." http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi122.html [lewrockwell.com]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Aventis-Vaccine-Factory-in-by-Doreen-Carlson-090519-669.html [opednews.com]

Even our own government has in the past infected it's own population to see how disease spreads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_biological_weapons_program#Experiments_on_non-consenting_individuals [wikipedia.org]

I'm not one to cook up conspiracy theories, but it's always healthy to question things IMO.

Re:Vaccine Makers Probably Create New Flu Strains (1)

sd1000 (1659113) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859575)

There are actually a couple of related interesting stories. There was the accidental contamination of vaccines by bird flu http://www.naturalnews.com/026571_Baxter_New_Zealand_health.html [naturalnews.com] And then there is the fact the same company filed a patent for h1n1 1 year before it broke out http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/276194 [digitaljournal.com]

Surprised? (0, Troll)

hackus (159037) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859517)

There is no decision made about vaccines any more unless a politician has stock or the company making the vaccine gets hundreds of millions under the table.

Just imagine what they can do now, make a virus, release it, have it kill a few people, then make the vaccine for it.

Which is what I believe is exactly what is happening with H1N1.

Corruption is so widespread in government and business right now I wouldn't be surprised if the people in question where not on the boards of the companies making the vaccine in some manner of capacity.

But suprised, not at all. Logical outcome of events in my opinion.

-Hack

Emergency pwrs trump the Bill of Rights (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29859703)

guys just to let you know... Even though the H1N1 pandemic appears to have peaked out, U.S. President Barack Obama has now declared a national emergency over swine flu infections. The reasoning behind such a declaration? According to the White House, it’s designed to "allow hospitals to better handle the surge in patients" by allowing them to bypass certain federal laws. Emergency powers trump the Bill of Rights That’s the public explanation for this, but the real agenda behind this declaration may be far more sinister. Declaring a national emergency immediately gives federal authorities dangerous new powers that can now be enforced at gunpoint, including: The power to force mandatory swine flu vaccinations on the entire population. The power to arrest, quarantine or "involuntarily transport" anyone who refuses a swine flu vaccination. The power to quarantine an entire city and halt all travel in or out of that city. The power to enter any home or office without a search warrant and order the destruction of any belongings or structures deemed to be a threat to public health. The effective nullification of the Bill of Rights. Your right to due process, to being safe from government search and seizure, and to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination are all null and void under a Presidential declaration of a national emergency.

The opposition (0, Flamebait)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859925)

Most of the opposition in New York seems to be coming from some nutcase who runs an embroidery firm, organizes GOP "Tea Parties", and rants about vaccines and autism.

Vaccines are safer than most over the counter medications. The US already has over 1000 swine flu deaths this year, and we're not even into winter yet. Getting vaccinated is definitely a statistical win. Getting medical personnel vaccinated is essential; they are going to encounter infected patients, and they can transmit the disease to others weakened by other illnesses.

General Charles Krulak (former Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, and one of the best ones) wrote this [defenselink.mil] about the USMC mandatory anthrax vaccination program: "As we continue to broaden this program, I want to make you aware of a phenomenon we have observed: reluctance to take the anthrax vaccination is inversely proportional to the distance the marine is from the fighting hole. No marines engaged in Desert Thunder refused the vaccine." No nonsense there.

Re:The opposition (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#29859969)

Great point there. Also look at the source of this "article". A local right-wing radio station, with nothing in their article except innuendo, six-degrees-of-separation finger pointing, with no real evidence of any wrongdoing at all. I think their main problem with the commissioner is that he was appointed by a Democrat.

Ok here's what you do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#29860153)

Put the sick people at one end of the hospital, and the healthy people at the other.. upwind. Now, everybody go home and take the rest of day off. Drinks are on the house.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...