Have we become a nation of conspiracy theorists?

[Gutenberg]

I think a lot of the resistance is because people don't like needles. If the public health folks could come up with an oral vaccine then compliance would be nearly complete (cf. Salk vs Sabin vaccines for polio).

[OWC Jamie]

There's always one black sheeple.

They make 14 millkion doses for the first wave , run out, and we're a nation of conspiracy theorists ?
We used to have the freedom to a differing opinion. What happened to that ?

[rgG]

Gutenberg wrote:
I think a lot of the resistance is because people don't like needles. If the public health folks could come up with an oral vaccine then compliance would be nearly complete (cf. Salk vs Sabin vaccines for polio).

That is one of the main drawbacks for me, I hate needles. My childhood phobia has carried over to adulthood, and I am too old to get the nasal mist.

I would be more likely to get it if it was on a sugar cube like the polio vaccine.

[Yoyodyne ArtWorks]

The one phrase you'll almost never find on the Internet is "I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to offer an informed opinion, so I'll refrain from making a comment."

Our belief in democracy manifests itself in the relentless need to get our two cents in, even if we don't know what the hell we're talking about. And equally importantly, we believe our opinion is just as valid as anyone else's, even if our rival is an expert in his/her field.

[Article Accelerator]

freeradical wrote:
It's simply amazing that 43% of the public feels that the swine flu vaccine is unsafe. Have we become a nation that is anti-science?

Science has nothing to do with it. It may be equally "scientific" to reject the claim that the vaccine is safe.

[Mike Johnson]

Article Accelerator wrote: Science has nothing to do with it. It may be equally "scientific" to reject the claim that the vaccine is safe.

Well, no. Science isn't about rejecting claims, it's about disproving a hypothesis. If you're not following the scientific method, it's not science.

[DaviDC.]

I've heard that people born before 1950 are probably immune to H1N1 because it's closely related to the 1918 flu.

In answer to your question, yes; most definitely.

[TLB]

Except for a few groups this virus is relatively mild, even more so than the regular strains of flu passed around each year. Declaring the world-wide pandemic was not a reflection of the severity of the illness, but its wide-spread effects with confirmed cases in 70 countries around the world. The broad effects of this flu are due in large part to the fact that it’s a new strain and our bodies have not yet built up antibodies specific to this disease.

There is as much an irrational feat factor for those rushing to vaccinate as those that abstain. This may be in part because unlike seasonal viruses which typically take their toll on children younger than 5 years old and adults over the age of 65, the H1N1 burden seems to fall on those <25 years old. According to the CDC, no children and very few young adults have existing antibody to the 2009 H1N1 virus, but 1/3 of adults >60 years old do.

This vaccine is just as new as the H1N1 strain. Many immunologist admit the chances that a new flu shot will be overwhelmingly effective are small. It is not an unreasonable expectation that the vaccine could have more detrimental effects on your health than the virus itself.

I think healthy skepticism among those outside the high risk groups is reasonable and not anti-science. Even if I decided to get the vaccine, I have little confidence that it will be available to me to make a difference even if the efficacy was assured. I'm a bit upset that the seasonal flu vaccine supply in our region is already exhausted and will not be resupplied, because of the emphasis on H1N1.

[DharmaDog]

I also don't see how being skeptical about this vaccine is anti-science when there has been no testing of this vaccine.

Go employ the scientific method to build a case that the vaccine is both safe and effective. Once that is done, if I choose to dismiss the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, then you can say I'm anti-science.

Given that there is no data to conclude the vaccine is safe and effective, I can only go on the government's history on this sort of thing - and that's not very good.

Plus, the discussion is immaterial as there is not enough of it available to even vaccinate the high risk groups, much less low-riskers like myself.

[Article Accelerator]

Mike Johnson wrote:
[quote=Article Accelerator]Science has nothing to do with it. It may be equally "scientific" to reject the claim that the vaccine is safe.

Well, no. Science isn't about rejecting claims, it's about disproving a hypothesis. If you're not following the scientific method, it's not science.
Yes, thanks for the lesson, Mike. We don't disagree then, do we?