Because my wife is pregnant, she's in the class of people who "should" get the shot. But, with all the commotion, we won't bother. We'll leave a dose for the old people. Btw, since we're doing a tally, I have never had a flu shot and I have gotten the flu several times. What does that mean? The paranoia here helps me understand why charity organizations have trouble with distrust when they try to get people inoculated in third world countries.
They offered flu shots in my company a few weeks ago. One of us got the flu shot and felt ill for days. Glad I did not do it.
President Bush stared down the flu bug and said sternly "Bring it on" ~ then the cold sweats began...
Perhaps I missed it in the general hilarity and/or paranoia of the topic (sarcasm intended), but does anyone know if the Federal government, through the Department of Health, or the CDC, could have required the available flu shots be given only to those at risk, like the very young, the elderly, or those with lung problems? It was a suggestion by the Administration to the public to voluntarily leave these flu vaccinations for those at risk. Why didn't they, if they did in fact have the power, mandate that those at risk get the available shots, and the rest of the population get those left over, as best they could? Was that possible? Doesn't it make a hell of a lot of sense if it was? Keep D&D Civil
even the elderly cant get them. yesterday my 85 year old grandparents were denied flu vacinations. were told they didnt have enough. my gramps is career air force - served in WWII, korea and vietnam. just had a cancerous tumor removed from his nose and has prostate cancer. they wont give him a ******* flu shot. im pissed.
i dont think its the bush administrations fault for this, but why are we at the mercy of a british company for our flu vaccinations? for the record, i havent had a flu shot in about 10 years and during that time ive never had the flu. is is true that the flu shot actually gives you the virus so that your body builds up an immunity to it? it seems that alot of people get sick right after getting the shot.
This brings up another point. If kerry wants to protect American jobs so badly why is all excited about importing drugs from Canada (not that it's a bad possibility) but if he's all for protecting american jobs (good high paying American jobs) why is he for turning his back on American made drugs and for cheap canadian made drugs?
By the same token, if Bush is so worried about the safety of Canadian drugs (his reason why we shouldn't allow imports), why is he so gung ho about importing Canadian flu vaccines?
as i understand it, the drugs aren't made in Canada just that Canada has laws that cap the price of drugs. so it's the same drugs just at lower prices? feel free to correct me if i am wrong
The drugs in Canada, for the most part, come from American companies. They are then sold in Canada for less than they are here, because the Canadian govenment doesn't allow the obscene markup drug companies use in the United States. The idea that these "Canadian" drugs are somehow "unsafe" is as ludicrous as the notion that George W. Bush actually supported allowing Canadian sold drugs to be brought into this country. Bush claimed that he was for it in 2000. There is a two syllable word the Republicans have fallen in love with during this election cycle that would fit Bush's position on importing Canadian drugs, but I'm not going to use it. Keep D&D Civil
OK... picky, picky. Seriously, though, does anyone here know what prevented the United States government from requiring flu shots going to those most in need? Giddy mentioned "guidelines," but what does that do? In practical terms? Nothing. If the Bush Administration had the authority, under law, (which is my question) to require that those most at risk receive the flu vaccine, and that what remained go to those lucky enough to get it, why didn't it do so? I could give my local governments "guidelines" not to charge me taxes. And, you know what? It's meaningless. Keep D&D Civil!!
I think many people would balk at the idea that the government was requiring they get shots. As for why the government doesn't disallow people who shouldn't get them from getting them: (1) the current system, now that they've announced a shortage, seems to work fine, and (2) flu shots are probably too inconsequential to justify the application of more government intervention, and (3) given the small time window, considering the flu-season won't wait on the bureaucracy, I doubt that such a large undertaking (the distribution of remaining shots after the at-risk population has been served) could be administered.
