Yes it should! Why would you want to go to a Hospital that has a staff that is unprotected from spreading disease? You could go in for a cut on your finger that needs stitches and come out with the flu or some other disease that could have been avoided.

Under the same principles, Are they requiring all people {visitors,vendors, cooks and other non-medical staff etc.} who enter medical facilities to get flu shots? They are just as likely to bring in flu with them ! Too much AMA B.S., and infringing on peoples rights ! My body my choice, where have I heard this before?

Under the same principles, Are they requiring all people {visitors,vendors,etc.} who enter medical facilities to get flu shots?

Nurses and doctors have much closer contact with patients, and thus are much more likely to spread the flu

garbageman: I work in a hospital. The difference is those visitors do not go room to room moving to close contact with multitudes of patients, touching many items that the patient will. It is scale of contact. At our hospital if you choose not to get a shot you are required to wear the appropriate protective mask when in patient care areas.

@Eric 1.3 I think visitors actually have more 1 on 1 time with patients than any nurse or doctor ! This from a recently hospitalized patient!

With a single patient...not all.

@Vegas 1.4 A mask works for me, and as I said before, and you mention scale of contact that there are many other people in medical facilities such as kitchen workers, maintenance, candy strippers, trolley volunteers etc.

@TJ 1.6 The flu is airborne, not only by touch! So coughing and sneezing in hallways and rooms does not isolate it to only the person they are visiting

@Eric 1.3 I think visitors actually have more 1 on 1 time with patients than any nurse or doctor ! This from a recently hospitalized patient!

so time is one factor, but not the only or most important one. 2 minutes of close contact is more likely to transmit infection than one hour of simply being in the room

@TJ 1.6 The flu is airborne, not only by touch! So coughing and sneezing in hallways and rooms does not isolate it to only the person they are visiting

It is much, much more likely to be transmitted by touch than through indirect contact

Furthermore, even if you touch the patient as a visitor, you are not directly touching other patients. Doctors and nurses go from room to room. And although hand washing is an excellent defense, its not perfect

My family is composed of many doctors. The problem with flu shots is that there are many strains of flu and the vaccine you get will most likely not be for the strain of flu you come down with. Follow the money - the drug companies make fortunes on these vaccines even if they don't target the correct virus.

I will not be getting any flu shot. Never have and unless there is a long occurring flu that a vaccine would specifically address it seems pretty pointless.

@ Seymour another good point and voice of reason!@ Eric see globalsecurity.org/security/ops/hsc-scen-3_flu-transmission.htm for correcting your misinformation!

The problem with flu shots is that there are many strains of flu and the vaccine you get will most likely not be for the strain of flu you come down with.

False. The match this year is 65% to 85%

Follow the money - the drug companies make fortunes on these vaccines even if they don't target the correct virus.

Maybe, maybe not. Either way, its not proof at all that the vaccines don't work. Apple makes tons of dough on iphones--do they work?

it seems pretty pointless.

Only if math or biology are not your best subjects

I got my flu shot, but I do feel it should be up to the individual or hospital/medical facility and not the government. If they want to make it law then also require it for ALL medicaid, welfare. food stamp recipients. Such would save millions of dollars in medical care for those whose care is being provided by our tax dollars. But then that would be prevention and heaven forbid we prevent and not just react after the fact.

As far as hospital visitors, one of the worse things ever IMO is that people visit patients and handle everything from the garage to the patient's room and then hug and kiss on the patient. The problem is that most never sanitize their hands. There should be a public education campaign on sanitizing one's hand before entering and when leaving a patient's room. It would likely cut down on the FLU and MRSA.

>Seymour.. The estimates are that the shot is ~65% effective this year, which beats 30-40% for other methods. So it's worth it imo, but I do respect your right to not get one, as long as you are making your decision based on correct information and not media scare tactics or voodoo medicine. The biggest benefit is herd immunity, if enough people get the shot then the chances of an outbreak go down exponentially.

Seymour, I see you have bought into the propaganda. Those vaccines are dirt cheap to make and many places you can get them for FREE or for as little as $5. Only an uninformed idiot or someone allergic to the vaccine would avoid it.

I have been getting the vaccine for YEARS and guess what? Ever since I started getting it I have NEVER come down with the flu. The one year I failed to get the vaccine I fricking caught it. I do not want to be around anyone that doesn't get the vaccine as they are akin to luddites. My sister is a health care worker who REFUSES to get the vaccine and she ALWAYS comes down with the flu because she is around sick people all the time. I wonder how many people SHE and others like her gave the flu to patients because of their stupidity. The last thing a sick person needs it to catch the flu from some ignorant nurse who is carrying it but hasn't started to show yet.

Personally I think if you can prove a nurse gave you the flu you should be able to sue their damned pants off if they failed to get the vaccine.

It is outrageous that flu shots be made mandatory. If you're allegic to eggs like I am you could die from the shot. They put thimerasol (mercury) in these shots as well as formaldehyde, aluminum, and squalene. Since when should it be mandatory to get injected with poison? Other than the fact that they don't work over 50% of the time, I suppose it's no big deal. NOT. Just say NO to flu shots. Eat a healthy diet, wash your hands frequently and keep them away from your face, get enough Vit.C and D3 and you won't get the flu. Nuff said.

As a nurse I am appalled at the actions of my peers. I don't like the government involved, any more than it already is, in my life but if hospital workers won't do the right thing maybe this is the only way. I have spent almost my entire career (since 1982) in OB where it has always been a requirement that a person is able to prove that they are Rubella immune. And when the Hep B vaccine came, we were required to get that as well. I don't like to put anything in my body anymore than any one of these that want to refuse vaccination. I do it to protect the babies that I have given my life to serve. It would be selfish and stupid to do otherwise.

George - The individual doses do not have thimerasol preservative. Most hospitals and drug stores that I know use the individual doses. The military I think still in some places use the multi-dose vials. The research shows they work ~60% of the time. I agree that the government shouldn't make them mandatory and that properly washing hands and maintaining good health is an excellent measure, but the research shows a benefit.

see globalsecurity.org/security/ops/hsc-scen-3_flu-transmission.htm for homeland security info on transmission of the flu, and increase your knowledge !

@garbageman

"Too much AMA B.S., and infringing on peoples rights ! My body my choice, where have I heard this before?"

You are 100% correct, although, If I were the hospital administrator my response would be "My hospital my choice" to employ you that is..

i am a retired nurse , i never got the flu shot , many did i never got the flu many that did became sick. Actually my husband has the flu right now and had the flu shot , i did not get it, i am fine as of right now knock on wood. Just saying i have reactions to all kinds of drugs but nurses also have many mandatory shots they have to get. The shot was not mandatory as of yet at our facility or any one i ever worked for, these shots have only become mandatory over the last few years , in my opinion i really do not see it helping i have talked to just as many people that had a shot , that have the flu, then did not have the shot. If you have compromised health conditions yes i think it is the wise thing to do.

I am appalled by the supposed nurses[hospital workers] except for @VEGAS that are unfamiliar that large droplets are the primary route of nosocomial { hospital acquired } transmission !

You are 100% correct, although, If I were the hospital administrator my response would be "My hospital my choice" to employ you that is..

You can't fire someone for not wanting to put something into their body. Sorry but these cases will go to court and the defendants will win and get their jobs back and some extra $$$. There is no proof that the flu shot even gives you that much protection...in fact most of the people that I know that got the flu got the shot earlier in the year and it was the wrong strain of flu.

The hospitals should have moved these individuals who didn't want the shot to other positions till the outbreak/epidemic was over...putting them say in areas away from patients and doing medical paperwork or working from home.

Best defenses: Get your rest. Wash your hands. Don't rub your eyes or nose. Wipe clean surfaces and door handles. Carry sanitizer with you.

Well, I for one had to get the flu shot every year in the military because it was mandatory and I use to get the flu at least 2 to 3 times a year. I have been retired for 19 years now and have not had a flu since I retired, but have only had the flu 4 times in 19 years. So I don't think anyone should have to get the shot if they don't want it. The problem with everyone getting sick these days is we as a country over vaccinate are children and pump them full of antibiotics which keeps there immune systems from developing the way they should so as we get older we can not fight off sickness on are own.

@Sandy you say most of these shots are free or cost $5.00, I guess you are part of the propaganda to get the flu shot as you don't mention true costs of the shots, just the bottom end of spectrum, and I assume that you think the drug companies are not making a profit from their manufacture! I don't receive the shots even though I can easily get one, and also have not had the flu in recent memory, going back at least 20 years! I believe that we are actually making our immune systems weaker by not allowing our bodies to fight off diseases. You hear of reports that say there are more infections that are harder to fight because of our overuse of antibiotics and other medicines.

I was forced to get the flu shot even though I don't get sick from the flu. Funny thing is, the hospital spent all this money to get staff vaccinated and guess what? The staff is calling out w/ the flu. Why are people calling out w/ the flu if it is such a great match? I believe it is a money making adventure for the drug companies. So what is the point? Why don't people take better care of themselves by washing their hands, sneezing/coughing into their elbows, staying hydrated, etc. I will still have to go back to work in an all ready understaffed environment and not be able to take a break. Why don't they put the money to more staff so the staff can take federally mandated break that I don't get paid for?

Ah yes, I always get my medical advise from a garbageman, their years of medical schooling are far superior than from someone who has a Doctorate in Medical Science and is a MD or DO. The dumbing down of America, flatlanders who read an article on the internet obviously know more than those who have spent years in Medical School and have done a residency in a hospital under the tutelage of experienced doctors.

The highest rate, about 88 percent, was among pharmacists, followed by doctors at 84 percent, and nurses, 82 percent. Fewer than half of nursing assistants and aides are vaccinated, Bridges said.

Notice it is not the highly trained and educated health workers refusing the shots, its the low end of the spectrum,

@George-2513826 - You are a completely uninformed idiot spreading false information through incorrect and intentionally misleading statements. Thimerosal is not used as a preservative in single dose vaccines which is what most places that give flu shots use. In addition, there is absolutely no proof that thimerosal is in any way dangerous and all evidence linking it to health issues has been thoroughly refuted. The vaccines do not contain aluminum, they contain aluminum salts, which is a different thing and does no harm. As for squalene, this is something that every person's liver makes itself, so even if it were in flu vaccines, which it is not, there is no danger from it since it is naturally produced in your own body.

I do not think that nurses should be forced to get flu vaccines. I have never gotten a flu shot and have not had the flu in well over a decade. I am more likely to get sick from the flu shot than I am from contracting the flu. Some people are allergic to eggs, which are used to make the vaccine, so the vaccine could kill them. There are many other workers in the hospitals who have regular patient contact who are not being required to get the flu shot. These include the people who distribute meals to patients, respiratory and physical therapy workers, etc. The idea that nurses present some additional risk to patients beyond visitors and other workers in the hospital is questionable at best. As for doctors being required to get the vaccines, when I have been in the hospital, and that has been a number of times, my contact with doctors outside of the operating room where they are wearing masks has been very little and far less than other workers, including cleaning personnel, in the hospital that are not required to get the flu shot.

I do not think that nurses should be forced to get flu vaccines. I have never gotten a flu shot and have not had the flu in well over a decade. I am more likely to get sick from the flu shot than I am from contracting the flu.

But others are not. One does not only get the flu to protect themselves, but to protect others. That is actually the point of the article

The idea that nurses present some additional risk to patients beyond visitors and other workers in the hospital is questionable at best

Really? When was the last time a food delivery personnel changed the bandages on a patient? Or dressed wounds?

this kind of contact is higher risk for transmission

my contact with doctors outside of the operating room where they are wearing masks has been very little and far less than other workers, including cleaning personnel, in the hospital that are not required to get the flu shot.

When was the last time a janitor put his hands on you? How about a doctor?

JS

I am more likely to get sick from the flu shot than

You cannot get sick from the flu shot unless you are allergic. The shot has dead virus that cannot do any harm, you're body may react to the dead virus and your immune system will kick in as if you have the flu. This may make you feel lousy for a couple of days but you will not get sick. The rest of your post is correct, although I think all hospital workers should have the shot unless they are allergic, doing otherwise is ignorance, this is part of working in the medical field, if someone doesn't like it no one is forcing them to work in the medical field.

How many people are killed by the flu shots? How many get the flu from the shots? How mant people get the flu from people who got the flu from the shots? Looks like another way to give manufacturers our tax dollars.

Many of the hospitals are saying if you don't get the flu shot then you have to wear a mask when working with a patient. Sounds REASONABLE to me. If you choose not to get the shot, your saliva and mucousal secretions should be prevented from leaving your immediate sphere and infecting a patient. If they don't want to get a shot and object to wearing a mask ... find another line of work. It's that simple. From a public health perspective, you don't have a third option. If it hurts your widdle feelings to have someone decide not to let you near them because you're wearing a mask for THEIR protection - OH FREAKING WELL. GET OVER IT OR GET THE SHOT. They have a right to decide that someone who takes so little care with their patients' lives won't be working with/on them.

I am 59 years old.Can only remember ever having what i would call the flu 3 maybe 4 times. The number of times i've had a flu shot -0......I really don't see the need for anyone to be required to get a flu shot. i just think is wrong and an invasion of my personal privacy. What if I were to have a severe reaction as they do occur ? Who will pay fo my care and who will take care of my family if it kills me ? I would agree that the shot or the mask but not the shot or your job.

Rick-3315346

How many people are killed by the flu shots? How many get the flu from the shots?

If you are not allergic to the flu shot there is 0 possibility of dying from it. 0 people get the flu from a flu shot, the flu shot contains dead virus to make your immune system create antibodies, this ignorance is driving us backwards. Do research in science fact not science fiction if you want truthful answers.

@ Antistupidity You must of thought of that name, while looking at yourself in the mirror and hating what you are, if you truly believe a persons handle reflects their true self, I hope you know the old joke about the dangers of the word ass/u/me! Just here to take out the trash! I have posted a site in comment 1.18 that is a part of a homeland security article. I would think that their info should of probably been vetted by the very best medical professionals in our country! You fail to mention the studies of how we are making our bugs harder to combat as they become immune to our medications, because of our overuse of them! I prefer my own immune system to try and combat an illness than have one that is harder to control, due to my overuse of preventatives!!!

garbageman-2736857

Right back at ya, that is not homeland security's site, that is a private site, note the .org, not .gov. This is homeland security's site www.dhs.gov if you want to quote homeland security at least use their site as a reference. PS I have a MD, DO and PA in my immediate family, they are top of their respective area's of practice, I think they are sufficient for me to get information from, ok garbageman.

@Anti 1.34 Right and I say that it is an article from homeland security not that the site was homeland security!! Duh!!!! I hope your medical family members do not have the arrogance you possess, as I am sure that their patients will truly suffer! Just because your family members have a medical background doesn't make you a medical professional. I see you don't know that there are doctors that will contradict each other in the appropriate care and treatment of patients. I also don't think that they are gods either as they are as human as you and I and are just as fallible in their decisions! We read of mistakes in the health field all the time!!!

garbageman-2736857

After rereading your post I realize I missed something, the overuse of antibiotics has nothing to do with the use of vaccines, vaccines spur your immune system and would actually help you in your method of helping you immune system to fight the flu VIRUS. Antibiotics will do nothing for a virus, it may however be used to fight secondary bacterial infections when sick with a virus. These secondary infections may occur due to a weakened immune system from fighting the virus. So getting a flu shot, which granted is not 100% but will help your immune system strengthen prior to contracting the virus(providing the strain is correct) will help you remain stronger and able to fight off possible secondary bacterial infection, in turn lessening the need for antibiotics, in turn reducing the overuse and the creation of bacteria immune to the current antibiotics. Think it all the way through, no doctors are not Gods, but good ones have a far better understanding of angles you and I would not think of. No I am not a medical professional, but I am pretty good at chemistry and biology and fortunately have people that give me all the angles and don't treat me as the usual doctor patient, I get full explanations that go down all avenues. That in turn makes me better versed than most, and as far as the flu goes, the means of transmission and the use of vaccines is pretty cut and dry. I am very much aware that doctors contradict each other, some graduate with a 4.0 some with a 2.0. The 4.0 often correct what the 2.0's have done. There isn't a space on a diploma for a gpa so there are good and bad doctors. I will stick with the 4.0's thank you.

@Anti You infer that I was only talking about anti-biotics, I was not only talking about that. I used "medication" as the operable word as they have the tendency to build up in your body. I am more prone to see a board certified NMD. You might be able to surmise from that, that I am more apt to follow a regimen of less pharmacology use. I also believe that my body has the ability to fight off infections, and prefer to give my own immune system the chance to fight the infection on its own, not to mention the fact that genetics also play a part in our health. Overall I have been healthy, and only had some surgical issues in all of my nearly 6 decades! I do not deny medicine,I just do not believe all the hype that is presented to me by an agency that has everything to gain by our acceptance of their information. MD's can't even keep up with the supposed newest and best new things coming out on the market!

Steve Jobs had that same outlook, while I agree a healthy body can heal itself, and a good physician may advocate for letting some things run their course, other things need to be tackled head on, only a qualified physician can make that determination, second guessing a physician could leave you like Steve Jobs. I do not listen to any agency, I listen to my family members who I know have my health as their first concern, as should every physician about their patient. If the patient's health is not their first concern they should not be doctors. If you do net feel your doctor has your health as their first concern, you should find another doctor.

@Anti You might look at the CDC.gov site to see that some of the [note I say] "possible" side effects that you say don't exist! It says: redness and soreness at injection site, low grade fever, muscle pain, and discomfort or weakness! Kinda sounds a little like the flu to me...

Those "side effects" are the immune system creating antibodies, they are normal and affect different people to different degrees but they are definitely not the flu. I have had them from the flu shot, and while they may make you feel a little lousy for a couple of days they are certainly not anywhere close to the flu. I have also had a flu shot with 0 side effects, it depends on the strain and your immune system. I have been very sick with the flu, these reactions are nothing in comparison.

@Anti I also forgot to mention the numerous times that drugs have been recalled for causing issues for people that have been prescribed by them by doctors who believe the sales reps info and all the supposed studies that have been done by the drug companies! All you have to do is watch TV to see all the lawyers advertising to include you in a lawsuit!! Again, the medical field is not infallible. In an earlier comment you said there were no side effects "You cannot get sick from the flu shot unless you are allergic" in comment 1.29,just saying....

Fine. Allow the whiners their exemption. Right after they are granted it, put them on unpaid leave till after the flu season.

Drugs have absolutely been recalled, some people are affected some are not, ambulance chasers are looking for any payday they can get and will blow anything out of proportion, however there are bad drugs and companies that have done bad things, you will get no argument from me on that point. Many times there is not one blanket prescription for everyone. Many drugs are poisons and we used controlled poison to treat things, some of the things our bodies generate to fight illness are not great either. I take a medication that some people have had very bad reactions to, but it works well with my body chemistry when used properly. If a doctor goes solely on the word of a sales rep without looking at the chemistry they should have their license revoked. All the pertinent chemical information is in the paperwork provided with the medication, a good doctor will read and understand it before prescribing a medication, specially when interaction with other drugs is possible. I am not saying there are no bad doctors out there, that is why people should always get a second opinion unless they have a good doctor that cares and has proven themselves, a good doctor will have no problem with a second opinion.

Everyone has an opinion, but very few will actually experiance the pain and suffering of contracting a desiese from a helathcare worker, UNLESS YOU ARE THE UNLUCKY ONE. Why should we trust in "luck" when you enter a hospital? In todays healthcare industry all a paitient is is a commadity, a commidity to be used for profit. I was unfortunate enough to get MRSA 10 years ago IN THE HOSPITAL, I was told after 3 1/2 months of the strongest medication available that "at least I was alive", yes I was alive but with damaged hearing and the loss of my right leg due to "complecations". Of course no other doctor would say anything was done wrong, I was just UNLUCKY. Now healthcare workers want to "pick and chose" what they will do as opposed to what is BEST FOR THE PATIENT, Well I believe when that worker refuses to respect the patient's RIGHT to not get their disease then I do not believe they need to be in that profession. Do something else that doesn't require being in contact with the public, or get sued for giving someone else your disease. IT IS YOUR JOB

@Anti I hope you enjoyed our banter and a perspective from an individual who in your arrogant self described as the "dumbing of America" and of someone "in the low end of the spectrum" and your distaste of people that use the Internet to educate themselves, but you use the very same medium to try and educate people in your beliefs 1.26, I am therefore suprised that you would want to debate with someone for so long, that is so far beneath you!!!The fact is that any fact can be seen as science fiction or fact by those perceiving it. Also be sure that you are actually posting the absolute truth, instead of your interpretation of it["you can't get sick from the flu shot unless you are allergic" post 1.29] , and state your references. Remember refrain from your prejudging and try to make valid points as they will probably be listened to more!!! I pass along a quote I enjoy by Robert Louis Stevenson " that person is a success, that has lived well, laughed often and loved much". Otherwise, I am glad that you have your members of the family that you trust! see ya....

Thank you Ray for giving your personal account of how irresponsible and undereducated lower tier health care workers can be. The vaccinations should be mandatory for everyone that works in a hospital and is not allergic. The hysteria created by flatlanders who go in the face of science needs to stop, on this and many other topics.

@ray you can contract the flu anywhere and from any person,not just from the medical staff. An article I mentioned earlier cites that nosocomial[hospital acquired] transmission is primarily by way of large droplets incurred during coughing or sneezing. Follow protocols of wearing a mask, washing hands etc can also be a viable form of containment, as there is no way to protect you 100% from the flu unless you are isolated and kept in a bubble in a sterile environment!

Garbageman

You have just proven my point in your last post without even realizing it. Thank you.

The fact is that any fact can be seen as science fiction or fact by those perceiving it

Not true it is either fact or fiction, it cannot be both according to perception, perception is a variable fact is not.

and your distaste of people that use the Internet to educate themselves

I have no distaste of people who use the internet to educate themselves, however when quoting a source the source should be used, not a second source.

Also be sure that you are actually posting the absolute truth, instead of your interpretation of it["you can't get sick from the flu shot unless you are allergic" post 1.29] , and state your references.

It is the truth, I cannot cite multiple physicians that have not posted it to the internet, if you wish to dispute it cite credible sources that say otherwise, not a site that cites another site. I do not get all my information from the internet when I have access to real live experts with far more training and education in the field than either you or I.

I pass along a quote I enjoy by Robert Louis Stevenson " that person is a success, that has lived well, laughed often and loved much".

How can you possibly know that I have not "lived well, laughed often and loved much".

Ray stated that he contracted MRSA not the flu, while not exclusive MRSA is most often contracted at the hospital, the second most likely place is a school because children do not pay attention to proper sanitation. Another contributor is overuse of antibacterial soaps which in the long run weakens the immune system.

This is Bogus.

Having Medical Staff Vaccinated isn't about the Patients Welfare. It's a Hospital for Gods sake. Half the Patients already have the Flu. The Virus is Everywhere. During Flu season, most of the patients coming to the emergency room & being admitted are there because they have the Flu already.

This is ALL about Staff having to take off work when their down sick with the Flu. Nothing Else. SPIN SPIN SPIN. Why don't they just tell it like it is.

Looking about, seeing the people I know that have had the Flu Vaccine this year I can only say 1 Thing. This Years Vaccine was pretty much a Total Bust. Nearly everyone I know who received it have been down with the Flu. I would note that my Girlfriend who teaches & all her fellow Staffers received this years Flu vaccine & all of them were sick. EXCEPT ME who was exposed while taking care of my sick girlfriend. I Didn't get the Flu Shot????

I would like to see a Valid review of those who received the Flu Vaccine & Those Who Didn't. What are the percentages. I have a feeling you wont find much variance in the results.

The Flu travels around the world by season. Vaccines are administered accordingly just ahead of Flu Season. A Health Advocate group in the UK wanted to see the Hard Data from the Pharma Group that produced the Vaccine. Seems they were aware that this years Vaccine was way under effective with a high rate of side effects up-to & including Deaths. They Have Been Refused Access. They've also received a Lot of Pressure to STFU...

I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND an INVESTIGATION.....

Of Course that would be a waste of time & money. Would be like asking the FDA to Investigate it's self. YES, There that in Bed with Big Pharma...

I would like to see a Valid review of those who received the Flu Vaccine & Those Who Didn't. What are the percentages. I have a feeling you wont find much variance in the results.

your feeling would be wrong

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17142257

In the 2003-4 period of influenza activity significant decreases were found in mortality of residents in intervention homes compared with control homes (rate difference -5.0 per 100 residents, 95% confidence interval -7.0 to -2.0) and in influenza-like illness (P=0.004), consultations with general practitioners for influenza-like illness (P=0.008), and admissions to hospital with influenza-like illness (P=0.009).

@anti I was using a comment you made earlier, and again I reiterate, facts can be distorted and are a matter of perception by the people giving those facts. All you need to do is look at people, who can take facts from statistics and both can prove their own different viewpoints, by simply using the facts that meet their conclusions!! Are they facts? Yes. Are they truly true or a distorted perceived view of facts? Your arrogant views are self evident in the ways you describe others who do not see the world through your clouded view! As far as my references that I have posted they are exactly as I posted: CDC.gov to disprove your statement that you can not get sick from flu shot, although you say that you yourself have not felt well after a flu shot. and the other site that has an article from Homeland Security, that discusses transmission of the flu, has hsc in its address standing for homeland security council! Sorry I am not going to do all your homework for you! As far as my quote, I didn't say you were not any of those things, just putting it out there, but, it must of hit a nerve for you to think that is what I meant! It was a cordial way to say see ya...As far as medical advice[not advise] from your family members that, to use your exact words from comment 1.35 "I have a MD, DO and PA in my immediate family, they are top of their respective area's of practice, I think they are sufficient for me to get information from" So the question I have is ,are they "at" the top?are they "the top"? are they "near" the top? Are they in the top 50%? Who puts them there ,you? Are you the only person on the planet that has family members in the medical field? Are these family members, only using their life experiences, because there are many life experiences out there that can contradict their viewpoints. Do they have the same arrogant beliefs and attitude, like one of the numerous comments you make like the one in 1.47 "Thank you Ray for giving your personal account of how irresponsible and undereducated lower tier health care workers can be" I am sorry to tell you this, but you are not as educated as you believe you are, and these lower tiered health care workers, that you are derogatory about do actually have medical training, as I am unaware that you have any at all,in my reading of your comments! Surprise ,Surprise! Yes I do, as I went to school to be an EMT and was nationally licensed. Am I Qualified to answer all medical questions, NO! And neither are you, since you are only taking information you hear and trying to pass yourself off as an expert!! Get over yourself!! As far as comment about ray in 1.50, this article is about flu and he appeared to be putting blame on medical staff for his unfortunate event, and my statement would be the same for MRSA, which is in short, we don't live in a bubble, disease is everywhere!

Whenever I hear someone talk about the scary-sounding chemicals in vaccines, I delight in informing them about the dangers of Di-hydrogen Monoxide, a corrosive liquid known to cause thousands of deaths every year, and is commonly used by all the big agricultural and food manufacturer businesses.

You should see their eyes grow wide in horror, as I tell them all the properties of this liquid, and how common it is. I delight in watching them become outraged and paranoid, then watching them squirm with embarrassment when I inform them of this chemical's common name....

Yes, I'm a bit of an @!$%#. Morons bring it out of me.

(For those of you who didn't get the joke, its water.)

Stephen-3215347

Ha ha I've used the same one, the reactions are great. I was laughing as soon as I read it.

Yes, I'm a bit of an @!$%#. Morons bring it out of me.

Ditto

Kinda like the garbageman ROFLMAO

And I also like to point out to the people up in arms about the "toxic" Aluminum compounds in vaccines:

Elemental (as in, pure) Chlorine is toxic if inhaled or taken orally, and Elemental Sodium explodes when it comes into contact with water. Yet, if you combine these two dangerous chemicals, it becomes common table salt.

Similarly, Elemental Aluminum is toxic in large doses, but when combined with other chemicals (such as those found in vaccines and other medicines) in tiny doses, it instead boosts immune response.

Funny how basic chemistry works, isn't it?

I am baffled how many people are using their personal experience, "I got the flu shot once and I got the flu" versus large studies validating the effectiveness and safety of vaccines. Ancidotal evidence from you and your friends means nothing in the grand scheme.

I also find it bizarre that someone in the medical field would claim religious exemption. Will they feel less inclined to give me the things I need because it is contrary to their beliefs? I think those folks have chosen the wrong career path.

While in the Navy, I too was forced to get a flu shot every year. The biggest difference between then and now is that then the vaccination was a "weakened virus" unlike the dead one (or whatever it is) now. Every year I got sick (I won't say it was the flu, but I ended up on some sort of symptom-relieving medication). The only year I didn't get sick, and everyone else did, was when my medical record said I had already received the vaccination. I asked the corpsman if he was sure and he said "yes" so I decided not to push the issue and left.

That was 25 years ago. I have not had more than a sniffle or a mild head cold since. Yeah, I will take the bashing from those of you who feel the need to try and shame me into getting one. Perhaps when I get a bit older and more vulnerable I will. But for now, they can keep it.

Something else for you people spreading misinformation is to look at: another government site, and you will see this: hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html

Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund provides funding for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to compensate vaccine-related injury or death claims for covered vaccines administered on or after October 1, 1988.

Funded by a $0.75 excise tax on vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for routine administration to children. The excise tax is imposed on each dose (disease that is prevented) of a vaccine. Trivalent influenza vaccine for example, is taxed $0.75 because it prevents one disease; measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, which prevents three diseases, is taxed $2.25.

The Department of Treasury collects the excise taxes and manages the Fund’s investments. Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund Monthly Reports So, as you can see the government has a program that acknowledges that they must tax the vaccine to help pay for injury from a flu vaccine, among others. You can search fo "vaccine injury compensation trust fund monthly reports", to see that it is still a current program! I would think that the governments medical professionals who were consulted to help create this program are truly the best in their fields!

I guess, from your comment, that you must give up all your rights if your job dictates it ! I look forward to living in your utopia[sarcasm] ! There has to be someone that makes it a requirement, but that doesn't make it right or just !

The flu shot is just one more attempt to make money. I have no problem with that until the gov't starts to make it manditory. How much does the military spend on giving every military member the shot? How hard did the drug company lobby to get that in place? Now they want to give it to every nurse? Do all the DRs. get it or just the nurses and aides? Seems to me every time the gov't makes something manditory there is a money trail.

This is Bogus.

Having Medical Staff Vaccinated isn't about the Patients Welfare. It's a Hospital for Gods sake. Half the Patients already have the Flu. The Virus is Everywhere. During Flu season, most of the patients coming to the emergency room & being admitted are there because they have the Flu already.

This is ALL about Staff having to take off work when their down sick with the Flu. Nothing Else. SPIN SPIN SPIN. Why don't they just tell it like it is.

For those who say it's the healthcare workers choice to not get the flu shot... then make those people either take a leave of absence until flu season is 'over' or let them find another profession that doesn't require them to take a patient's health seriously!

At the beginning of December my husband had a kidney stone attack and managed to fall and break his orbital socket (eye socket). This facial trauma resulted in a week in the hospital with a readmission for surgery as the seal around the brain was 'broken'; the break of this seal allows for infection to more easily get to the brain. Do you REALLY think un-immunized healthcare personnel should be allowed to care for patient's like this and expose them to the flu??? How many patient's in any hospital are immuno compromised? I say fire them if they care so little about their patients.

It astounds me the supreme selfishness of individuals working in healthcare who refuse to get a simple immunization.

In my former job I was the lead for a education workgroup for the flu in my job as a healthcare educator. The number of people sharing incorrect, inaccurate information on the flu shot just shows how much ignorance there is in the American populace and the need for MUCH more education... but is it really surprising? In this time in history we have such a wealth of informational websites available to us but so many refuse to choose to actually read and understand the information due to supreme selfishness and fear of a little jab. Or maybe they're more interested in researching the Kardashians? I sincerely hope you don't spread the flu to the elderly, small children, and those with conditions whose life IS threatened when you end up sharing the flu with them. Go to the CDC website, look up the 'pandemic storybook' and then tell us how it doesn't matter if you get a shot.

Reading so many uninformed/misinformed comments here is exhausting.

How would it be that for over two hundred years of America and for over 40 presidencies, healthcare has done just fine with health workers making their own decision about substances going into their own bodies, but suddenly, with the new anti-health act this is no longer the case? What about "our bodies, ourselves" as the libs have shouted since the 1960s? Why does this not sound like an excuse to control and eliminate long-tenured (ie, know better, know more) and real American health workers, and to put in their places more easily controlled foreign medical workers from the Dominican Republic, Kenya, the Philippines and on and on?

or over two hundred years of America and for over 40 presidencies, healthcare has done just fine

Um, really? Hacking off limbs without anesthesia and dying of diarrhea is just fine?

experimental flu shot

Experimental? Estimating the flu strain does not equal experimental. The reason you are choosing that word is it implies a "guinea pig" situation, which this is not

Let's start a war on MRSA and staph infections

How? By clearly labelling those patients in the hospital? check. By requiring contract precations on all MRSA infected or colonized patients? Check. By developing new antibiotics? Check. What else do you want?

I hope there's this much interest when the healthcare worker gets a needle stick from a hep c patient.

irrelevant, but there is

If your employer requires you to have the shot then get it. If you don't want it then quit. The arguement you make about being a patient at sometime yourself is ridiculous and makes no sense. Do the responsible thing and get the shot and quit whining. One would think you would want it so as not to spread the flu back to your own family.

Then how about mandatory contact precautions? Mandate every healthcare worker gown, glove, and mask prior to entering a patients room or giving care. That might also decrease other infectious disease that is rampant at hospitals.

When my father in law was in the hospital the staff made us put on gloves and a gown before entering the room. I didnt mind. My husband is kind of paranoid anyway so he would get paper towels and load them with the hand sanitizer and wipe literally everything down when he got into the room. lol

jcmaloney

If your employer requires you to have the shot then get it. If you don't want it then quit.

Luckily all the employees who have direct contact with patients in patient care areas at my hospital have accepted and agreed to the flu shot. It's optional for those departments who are not in patient care areas such as Administration, Credit Department, Billing Department, Health Information Management Department and others of the such. We are advised though that if we do go into patient care areas, we are required to wear masks which is a reasonable request if you refuse the flu shot.

So an employer imposing requirements for a job equates to our country being nazi in your mind? Your sad little mind must be very lonely.

they should not be forced to do something that might imbalance their health.

the flu vaccine neither imbalances nor unbalances one's health

eem too lazy to research and address the genetic differences between individuals that could affect the outcome of vaccinations

please enlighten us on your research

@eric-2573068 Hey pal, you seem hot under the collar determined to fight tooth and nail in regards to these forced 'flu shots' indentured upon people everywhere. whats in it for you! and where the hell is your research knowitall?!

I will tell you that I think it is more than just hospital ettiquette as to why the 'powers' that be want to stab everyone with these concoctions and it goes back to the swine flu scare tactics! Something smells'a foul and I do believe thay YOU jocko are a troll! Now if you care to cross epees with me, please invite yourself Im wating to instill some real sense into those who sleep..

Jim, if you want to find the troll look in the mirror. eric is 100% right here and you are not.

eric-2573068 Hey pal,

We're def not pals

you seem hot under the collar

You are clearly more worked up than I am..

determined to fight tooth and nail in regards to these forced 'flu shots' indentured upon people everywhere. whats in it for you!

The well being of other people, especially those relatively helpless people in hospitals. This may not mean much to you...

and where the hell is your research knowitall?!

Pubmed

YOU jocko are a troll!

Whos hot under the collar again? Just checking

Now if you care to cross epees with me, please invite yourself Im wating to instill some real sense into those who sleep..

You are unarmed

@Eric You claim to be using pubmed but don't even know the basics of flu transmission, @Jim is right, where is your documentation? Instead of spouting off! I gave you mine in post 1.11 you don't even know about the primary route of nosocomial transmission!!!

where is your documentation?

of what?

I gave you mine in post 1.11

of what?

you don't even know about the primary route of nosocomial transmission!!!

either do you. But the highest risk is direct contact

@Eric Thanks for proving @Jim correct, you are a troll, as you continue to spout misinformation without documentation from pubmed, and that article I mention in 1.11 is from homeland security and their many vetted medical professionals, that they have at their disposal. I happen to read, and it states that the primary route of nosocomial[hospital acquired] transmission is through large droplets that are spread through coughing and sneezing! Read and learn, and you might grow up to be a well learned grown up! We are all aware that your direct contact [ remove your hand], has you thinking of other things and not on truth!

happen to read, and it states that the primary route of nosocomial[hospital acquired] transmission is through large droplets that are spread through coughing and sneezing!

It doesn't say that. You are illiterate

Read and learn, and you might grow up to be a well learned grown up!

the syntax on this sentence is absurd.

@Eric I will quote the exact words in article cited: "Droplet transmission occurs when contagious droplets produced by the infected host are propelled a short distance through the air by coughing and sneezing" as the opener to the paragraph and "Large droplets appear to be the primary route of nosocomial[hospital acquired] transmission." at the very end of paragraph The site is Globalsecurity.org/security/ops/hsc-scen-3_flu-transmission.htm An organization that archives government files from dhs, dod etc. I always love people that try to make something true by wishing it to be true, and that by writing it, makes it so !!! Apparently you need classes in reading comprehension, as it appears that you are the individual that is illiterate. How does it feel, to be included in the lower percentage of the poll in this article?

"Large droplets appear to be the primary route of nosocomial[hospital acquired] transmission." at the very end of paragraph T

Now I will quote a couple sentences earlier

However, there is insufficient data to determine the proportion of influenza transmission that is attributable to direct or indirect contact.

See, you are typical of uneducated people trying to read scientific data. You will just accept whatever bs the author is trying to sell. Educated people don't care about conclusions--only data. And your site provides none--it even admits it

nice try though. You still have a ways to go, though.

What part of "PRIMARY"route of nosocomial[HOSPTAL ACQUIRED] TRANSMISSION, do you not understand? That is the statement that contradicts your statement that it is mainly transmitted in hospitals by direct touch!The statement you mention has nothing in it about the hospital, only overall, and if I were to allow you that as your proof, at least I was able to find something that says what I am saying by a government agency. Once again where is your proof that says it is by contact? I am still waiting!! Oh yeah here is some more info for you to look up and educate yourself ,so you can actually write facts! They are: cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/vaccine_safety.htm hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/faq.html These are all government sites that will educate you, that they do use a live vaccine[LAIV], not all dead vaccines[TIV] as you have stated,and that they list the trivalent influenza vaccine [TIV and LAIV]and the Haemophilus influenza vaccine under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, meaning that the government and its highly trained doctors have determined that people can be injured by these vaccines, disproving another one of your many mistatements! Just to let you know how you continue to prove how truly ignorant you are and that @Jim is correct. See Ya! Wouldn't want to be YA!!!!!

This is the very first paragraph in the article cited:

Influenza can be highly contagious, particularly among persons without pre-existing antibodies against influenza, such as young children during the inter-pandemic phase influenza and anyone during a pandemic. Roughly 50% of all infections are however asymptomatic; asymptomatic infection is especially common in children. The influenza virus is transmitted in most cases by droplets through the coughing and sneezing of infected persons, but it can be transmitted as well by direct contact. Did I just read another comment, that in most cases the influenza virus is transmitted in MOST cases by droplets through the coughing or sneezing of infected persons. Where do you think direct contact starts? My assumption would be someone coughed or sneezed into their hands then touched something....., not through some miraculous appearance of the virus on their hands as it is a respiratory disease.

garbage,

there's not data behind that statement. I do not believe statements without data from random websites online. Im sure you can dig through a hundred sites until you find one that agrees with your point of view.

Also, I never said direct contact was a more common method of transmission, just more effective. Indirect happens more because it is more common

For example, if direct contact was 50x more likely to spread the flu but happened 100x less often than indirect contact, then indirect contact would be the predominant form of spread though it is not as likely to spread the flu as direct contact

These are subtle points so im not surprised you are confused

@Eric in 5.13 you write "Also, I never said direct contact was a more common method of transmission, just more effective. Indirect happens more because it is more common"

@Eric This is part of your comment from 1.9

"It is much, much more likely to be transmitted by touch than through indirect contact

Furthermore, even if you touch the patient as a visitor, you are not directly touching other patients. Doctors and nurses go from room to room. And although hand washing is an excellent defense, its not perfect"

Notice your words "much,much more to be transmitted by touch"! How interesting that you changed your mind, how did that happen?

more likely to be transmitted, not more common. Clearly you did not understand my example above. Try reading it again

Another example:

you are more likely to be killed being shot by a cannon ball than a gun...but much less common

see?

@Eric These definitions are from www.webster-merriam.com

Definition of LIKELY

1
a: having a high probability of occurring or being true : very probable <rain is likely today>

¹com·mon

Definition of COMMON

3
a : occurring or appearing frequently : familiar <a common sight Notice that they both use the same meanings, see the word "occuring" in both and notice that they use the synonymous statements of "appearing frequently", and" high probability" and "very probable" I didn't use first 2 parts of common definitions as they are based on different uses of it and I didn't want to further confuse you!

you still don't get it.

But let's use your defintions

Using your defintion of likely, if attacked by a lion, how likely are you to be injured? The answer is very likely--ie, high probability

However, is this common in the US? No--it does NOT occur frequently

Thus something can be likely, but not common given the right conditions (a person in the US for example)

or think about it like this:

direct contact is more likely than indirect contact to pass on an infection (its easier to transmit directly)

However, since indirect contact is much more common, this ends up being the dominant method of transmission

Make sense now?

@ Eric you are using two different questions trying to prove your point Let us use the same words in the same questions:Question one; if attacked by a lion, how "likely" are you to be injured? The answer :very likely ie.high probability. Same question different word: if attacked by a lion how "common" is it for you to be injured? The answer: very common ie. occurs frequently. Question 2: However is this "common" in the US? Answer: NO-it does NOT occur frequently. The same question different word: However is this "likely" in the US? The answer:NO- it is NOT a high probability!!! You are too much fun.....

@Eric Does it make sense now? Or are you still going to try your convoluted reasoning to try and prove an invalid point!

common and likely are not synonyms.

What you fail to understand is this is a raw numbers vs percentage issue. If direct contact results in infection 5 times and indirect results in infection 20 times, then clearly indirect is more common

But if those 5 direct infections were a result of 10 episodes of direct contact, then the infection rate there is 50%. Similiarly, if the number of indirect episodes was 100, then the infection rate is 20%

So infection after direct contact is more likely, but less common than indirect

You can call it convoluted all you want, but im not the only person that uses these terms. They are common among scientists, and really anyone with an 8th grade english education.

Here's an example for you

http://www.bmj.com/content/329/7456/0.2

This Week In the BMJ

Uterine rupture is more likely, but not common, after previous caesarean section

You fail to mention that those words were interposed in the questions you asked and that they work 100%! How do you explain that? There are numerous forms of use in grammar, and the meanings of complete sentences can be altered, but the words and their definitions remain the same. We have been discussing what you have written, not some completely different sentence. Your words are "much, much more likely" and I haven't seen your proof that it is, but have endured your inane try at misdirection on the subject by trying to argue and alter the conversation to argue a completely different point. This is another one of your statements: comment 1.9

"so time is one factor, but not the only or most important one. 2 minutes of close contact is "more likely" to transmit infection than one hour of simply being in the room" Where is your evidence of this statement? You seem to like to use the term more likely, in trying to convey your thoughts. It appears to be more likely that you overuse it. I also include my comment 1.2 and your reply in comment 1.3 "Under the same principles, Are they requiring all people {visitors,vendors, cooks and other non-medical staff etc.} who enter medical facilities to get flu shots? They are just as likely to bring in flu with them ! Too much AMA B.S., and infringing on peoples rights ! My body my choice, where have I heard this before?"

"Nurses and doctors have much closer contact with patients, and thus are much "more likely" to spread the flu". Notice more likely again. I again question your proof of this statement, as Maintenance travels throughout the hospital, Kitchen help that are infected are preparing meals going to every patient in the hospital, not the limited number a nurse will see on their ward or a doctor on their rounds!! You are too much like a politician, never answering the questions at hand but using misdirection to try and get away from the unanswered questions,

i have clearly shown you how others use the terms likely and common in the EXACT same way I do. I think you need to concede that point.

as for your question about flu transmission--fine. Heres evidence supporting my point of view

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17376383

No, they are not being used in the same way grammatically, and using alternative examples still has you using misdirection and not presenting the proof requested, or take into consideration that you have a penchant for overusing the words "more likely" without any evidence of same. You can make up all the examples you want, but they do not have anything to do directly with the point at hand. Where is your proof for all the times you use "more likely", I can only assume by your overuse of those words, it is "more likely" that they are just hyperbole!

they are used EXACTLY the same way in that journal title i gave you

I provided the proof requested in that link

more likely is an acceptable phrase

This article we have been debating has nothing to do with grammer, but in your overuse of the hyperbole of "more likely" and not presenting your evidence that makes it "more likely" to be true in the comments you have made. You haven't done that but do persist in the irrational behavior of trying to misdirect the issue at hand!!Again, I say ,Where is your proof that things are "more likely" as you write in your comments? Or are they "more likely" the hyperbole that I think they are!

his article we have been debating has nothing to do with grammer,

sure it does. You tried to insinuate that I mean more common when I said more likely. Then you tried to use them interchangably in my example. then you accused me of hyperbole for using it.

So I showed you a journal title which used the words exactly as I had. So either many other people are making the same mistake and are prone to the same hyperbole, and the editors of this journal are also included in that, or youre wrong

I think its b.

Again, I say ,Where is your proof that things are "more likely" as you write in your comments

again,I post my link.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17376383

ROFLMAO, Your comment is the issue, so, I say again, present the proof of your statement! Otherwise you can keep on making moot points till the day you die! You are way too funny! Just to let you know, I am gone since you are UNABLE to PRESENT EVIDENCE of your COMMENTS !! I have given you more than enough time to research to find PROOF of YOUR COMMENTS!!!

again,I post my link.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17376383

I had to look again to get myself another laugh, and you have surpassed yourself once again! The comment from your site states: "Planning for the next influenza pandemic is occurring at many levels throughout the world, spurred on by the recent spread of H5N1 avian influenza in Asia, Europe, and Africa. Central to these planning efforts in the health-care sector are strategies to minimise the transmission of influenza to health-care workers and patients. The infection control precautions necessary to prevent airborne, droplet, and contact transmission are quite different and will need to be decided on and planned before a pandemic occurs. Despite vast clinical experience in human beings, there continues to be much debate about how influenza is transmitted. We have done a systematic review of the English language experimental and epidemiological literature on this subject to better inform infection control planning efforts. We have found that the existing data are limited with respect to the identification of specific modes of transmission in the natural setting. However, we are able to conclude that transmission occurs at close range rather than over long distances, suggesting that airborne transmission, as traditionally defined, is unlikely to be of significance in most clinical settings. Further research is required to better define conditions under which the influenza virus may transmit via the airborne route." Again, I say, where does your proof state that it is "more likely" to be transmitted by direct contact? Nowhere does it use the words "more likely" and says they "conclude that transmission occurs at close range rather than long distances, suggesting that airborne transmission, as traditionally defined, is unlikely to be of significance in most clinical settings" Where does it say "more likely" and how is CLOSE contact the same as DIRECT contact? Remember my sites post that gave airborne transmission as a measurement of 0-6 feet, which is close contact, for small and large droplets, and stated that it did not give much credence to it being transmitted by way of ventilation systems! You would have to know what "traditionally defined is"according to this author! My "guess", that the virus is just floating around, which if true, points towards my site once again, which states it does not give much credence to it being transmitted by way of ventilation systems either. Thanks for brightening my day with laughter!

Again, I say, where does your proof state that it is "more likely" to be transmitted by direct contact?

However, we are able to conclude that transmission occurs at close range rather than over long distances

nd how is CLOSE contact the same as DIRECT contact

Influenza can be spread in three main ways:^[71][72] by direct transmission (when an infected person sneezes mucus directly into the eyes, nose or mouth of another person);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza

LOL! I see you are using wiki to try and validate your statement, written by anyone ,and it would not surprise that it is your entry you have copied. Here is also a part of that same article: Typically, influenza is transmitted through the air by coughs or sneezes, creating aerosols containing the virus. Influenza can also be transmitted by direct contact with bird droppings or nasal secretions, or through contact with contaminated surfaces. Airborne aerosols have been thought to cause most infections, although which means of transmission is most important is not absolutely clear.^[8] Influenza viruses can be inactivated by sunlight, disinfectants and detergents.^[9][10] As the virus can be inactivated by soap, frequent hand washing reduces the risk of infection.^[11; Also am glad to see that you are now using my definition and see my point and now disagree with your own comment in1.9

@TJ 1.6 The flu is airborne, not only by touch! So coughing and sneezing in hallways and rooms does not isolate it to only the person they are visiting

YOU:"It is much, much more likely to be transmitted by touch than through indirect contact

Furthermore, even if you touch the patient as a visitor, you are not directly touching other patients. Doctors and nurses go from room to room. And although hand washing is an excellent defense, its not perfect" I have been talking about airborne transmission all along see comment 5.12: "The influenza virus is transmitted in most cases by droplets through the coughing and sneezing of infected persons, but it can be transmitted as well by direct contact" Another one one of my comments 5.12: Did I just read another comment, that in most cases the influenza virus is transmitted in MOST cases by droplets through the coughing or sneezing of infected persons. Where do you think direct contact starts? My assumption would be someone coughed or sneezed into their hands then touched something....., not through some miraculous appearance of the virus on their hands as it is a respiratory disease. So thank you for finally ending this diatribe and agreeing with me, since you would of acknowledged in your comments that we were saying the same things, and ended this sooner if you truly meant what you now say in comment 5.31:

Influenza can be spread in three main ways:^[71][72] by direct transmission (when an infected person sneezes mucus directly into the eyes, nose or mouth of another person); NOTICE YOUR EVIDENCE NOW SAY SNEEZES,WHICH I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG, AND NOT ANYTHING ABOUT "MORE LIKELY" FROM DIRECT TOUCH, AS YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG! I will repeat myself again from comment 5.12 where this could of ended if you meant your last comment..... Did I just read another comment, that in most cases the influenza virus is transmitted in MOST cases by droplets through the coughing or sneezing of infected persons. Where do you think direct contact starts? My assumption would be someone coughed or sneezed into their hands then touched something....., not through some miraculous appearance of the virus on their hands as it is a respiratory disease. So again thank you for agreeing with me and providing such great entertainment!LOL

I was sharing my enjoyment of your humor with a couple of friends, and they fully enjoyed themselves. One suggested that we look at some of your other posts to see if you are "more likely"a TROLL,and we found this comment:

"I want a specific mechanism--otherwise, your entire post is conjecture"

LOL We couldn't believe that you of all people would make that statement!!!You said it, now present your proof ! Sound familiar, how many times did I ask that? Thanks for making our evening.LOL I'm thinking I'll have to post the address of these posts the next time I see you being a TROLL!

you and your friends look at this site for fun?

Get a life

ONLY IF SOMEONE CAN HUMOR US WITH THEIR ARROGANCE, THINKING THEY ARE ABOVE OTHER PEOPLE AND MAKE FOOLS OF THEMSELVES BY BECOMING THEIR OWN COMMENTS:

"It doesn't say that. You are illiterate" - "See, you are typical of uneducated people trying to read scientific data." - "These are subtle points so im not surprised you are confused" - These are from comments 5.8, 5.10 and 5.13 I see that you are on here also, trying to make others appear ridiculous! I would much rather be laughing and enjoying life, than trying to be a pompous fool trying to present himself as better than others!!

this just got old. Have fun posting to yourself.

It took you this long to figure that out, yet you still feel the need to comment...LOL

If the Hospital found to any nurse is sick, they be separated the nurse and SEND HOME and don't back until is healthy again, END OF THE PROBLEM, loose money for the Laboratorys...

Totally WRONG baco78 as the flu virus has an INCUBATION period in the body where the carrier is INFECTIOUS befor they start to show enough symptoms to be sent home. By the time they start to show they have the flu they have INFECTED OTHER VULNERABLE SICK PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMPROMISED IMMUNE SYSTEMS WHO COULD DIE FROM GETTING THE FLU.

I feel if you work are around sick people and refuse to get the vaccine and one of them catches the flu from your infected body because you refused to get the vaccine and they die then you should should be charged in contributing to their death.

One would need to prove that the resulting death was caused by the healthcare employee's refusal to receive the vaccine. That is, that said employee would not have acquired the flu if he/she had been vaccinated. Good luck with that. This is a legal debate, not a medical one.

Thetrust, you just proved the point of why this shouldn't be mandatory in your first sentence. The flu shot theoretically prevents the person who receives it from catching the flu. It does nothing to prevent casual transmission. If a health care practictioner is working with people sick with the flu part of the day, those germs are still ON the health care provider through the rest of the day unless they change clothes, shower, etc. They could have 100 flu shots and it won't prevent transmission of the germs of the person they dealt with before they entered your room. It will only hopefully help prevent the health care worker from contracting the flu themselves and passing that on. In addition, it's well documented and no secret that getting a flu shot generally only reduces your risk of catching the flu - it doesn't guarantee prevention.

those germs are still ON the health care provider through the rest of the day unless they change clothes, shower, etc. They could have 100 flu shots and it won't prevent transmission of the germs of the person they dealt with before they entered your room.

although clothes can carry microbes, unless the patient comes in direct contact with them, they are unlikely to be infected. the major route is still direct person to person contact in the hospital

That simple, huh Terry?

OK, tell that cute young thing up in accounting that a condition of her employment is she has to do me.

So, honey, do me or you're fired.

Nevada, that would be sexual harassment and is illegal. I guaran-dam-tee you that a condition of employment for all medical staff is to be current on all vaccinations. That's in all hospitals and all doctor's offices. Just like a condition of employment in many jobs is to be free of illegal drugs or abused prescription drugs. That's why so many jobs have random drug testing and pre-employment drug screenings. Don't like it? Don't apply for the job. They KNEW before they became employed in a healthcare setting that one of the conditions of employment is to be current with all vaccinations. They don't have a leg to stand on. Especially the ones who were told they could opt-out ONLY if they wore masks when working with patients who refused. They don't BELONG in healthcare if they have so little care for the well-being of their patients.

You're right, cat, sexual harrasment is rightly illegal. And pre-employment drug screening and random drug testing is a privacy issue that in a sane world would be ruled unconstitutional. There is a name for this level of collusion between government and private enterprise that results in this type of encroachment on the rights of citizens. I'll give you a hint, it starts with f and ends in m. Think about it.

No, it has been ruled to be a contracts issue, not a privacy issue. When you take a job, you are entering into a CONTRACT (and hospitals actually make their employees SIGN an employment CONTRACT). It is not an encroachment on the rights of citizens as there is a CHOICE to enter into a job where you are subject to pre-employment and random drug screening. For example: I worked in the financial sector where it was a requirement for my job to undergo pre-employment drug screening and random drug screening. I also had to be bonded and submit my fingerprints to my employer who then submitted them for file in the FBI and local police departments. My husband worked for a time as a prison guard and now works as an over-the-road truck driver. Both of THOSE positions require pre-employment drug screening and random screening in order to continue in the job. I CHOSE to work in the financial sector and my husband CHOSE his jobs. There are plenty of jobs where they do not have the mandatory screenings, and people are free to take that employment to be free of the requirements of proving that you are not taking illicit drugs or abusing prescription drugs. It's NOT fascism. It's contract law (which I happen to have a minor in).

The nurses who work in hospitals sign a CONTRACT that states they must keep up to date on ALL vaccinations. If they choose not to get the flu shot, they can either stay home during flu season, change careers, or wear a mask and be identified as people who have refused the flu shot. If they feel that it singles them out and patients might not want them to work with the patient, TOO BAD. THEY made a choice to be a nurse. THEY made a choice to not get the flu shot. THEY do not get a choice in what portions of their employment contract they must uphold. If they don't like it, they can be replaced - and references would be sure to mention that the nurse in question failed to either get a flu shot or maintain universal precautions to protect the patients in their care and that is why their contract was terminated. I have a sister who was a Respiratory Technician and a mother who was an LPN ... I frequently have ER doctors and pediatricians tell me that they have no additional information for me because I've already covered it in explaining the situation to them.

Damned Straight!

I agree. A few years back I had lung surgery, and was warned repeatedly that a lung infection would most likely cost me the rest of my lung. I was paranoid about everyone I came in contact with in the hospital. In such a vulnerable place, I would hope that people would take every precaution not to inadvertently infect someone.

Agreed, I'm a Nurse also and I always get the shots when it's time. To protect patients and also myself. Even at home I strip on the porch and even leave my shoes outside. The scrubs go right into the washing machine and then I wash my hands well, for the 86th time that day. I cringe when I see people in scrubs leaning over the vegetables in the supermarket.

Have you ever heard any reports AFTER flu season regarding what actually came around? Didn't think so.

Um, all the time. This year's match is about 65%. Also, we are constantly analyzing our estimates against the actual strains to improve for the upcoming years

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20931251

We always know what the current flu strain is or what it was after the flu season - just ask and they will tell you. You should get this info prior to your next seasonal shot at the least. I have low immunity due to chronic illness and get the shot every year for 20 yrs. and no flu in that time. Color me convinced. Health pro or not, why anyone would want to suffer through a bout of flu when they may not need to is foolish these days. The selfish argument will and should always prevail in this debate - period.

eric-2573068:

Have you ever heard any reports AFTER flu season regarding what actually came around? Didn't think so.

Um, all the time. This year's match is about 65%.

You keep throwing that 65% number around seemingly as evidence of the value of the shot.

15% better than a random guess is supposed to be impressive?

Since we get that number from the source of the vaccine it might be safe to assume it's a tad inflated, but let's accept it as completely accurate; 65% it is.

So, there's a 35% chance we're getting something that will be no help for what's going around. Call it one chance in three. So, the citizen who gets the shot each year can assume they're getting the wrong vaccine every third year. That's the best medical science can do?

Or, would making sure they're far more accurate simply be too expensive for them?

Well, let's never find out. Just like Wall Street, let's make certain they're not hampered with being over regulated. Let 'em do whatever the heck they want.

You keep throwing that 65% number around seemingly as evidence of the value of the shot.

thats because it is evidence

15% better than a random guess is supposed to be impressive?

thats incorrect. The baseline is 0%, not 50%. The flu vaccine is 65% effective in preventing the flu this year, at the low end of the estimate.

If someone came into contact with an sufficient quantity of influenza to result in infection despite usual precautions of hand washing, etc, their protection unvaccinated would be 0%, not 50%

So, there's a 35% chance we're getting something that will be no help for what's going around. Call it one chance in three. So, the citizen who gets the shot each year can assume they're getting the wrong vaccine every third year. That's the best medical science can do?

for now, yes

Or, would making sure they're far more accurate simply be too expensive for them?

The researcher who did accomplish that would be given a nobel prize and 2 million dollars, and be forever inscribed in the annals of medicine heroes. People are trying

Nevada, that figure is from the US Centers for Disease Control. Those are the people who TRACK the flu and other diseases and have the BEST information about what strains of the flu are currently being seen in the public because EVERY CASE is MANDATED by FEDERAL LAW to be reported to the CDC (by strain type and number of patients with that strain - not by name of the patient). So your little rant is illogical, paranoid and exposes you for what you are. SO those people "throwing that 65% number around" have the BEST information available. And no, the CDC doesn't make, distribute or have any monetary tie to the flu vaccine.

Would you rather have a 65% match to the flu strain or a 0% match? As someone who has a compromised immune system AND lung damage from pneumonia as a child AND asthma, I would take a 35% match if it means that my son, my husband or myself won't be infecting ME with the flu and possibly KILLING ME. The last time I had the flu I was sent from my Doctor's office directly to the ER BY AMBULANCE and was almost admitted on the spot. Instead I spent 18 hours IN the ER (that's not waiting time, that's after I was seen by the doctor) receiving nebulizing treatments to keep my lungs open before they decided that I was not in as imminent a risk for PULMONARY FAILURE. Ever since then (it's been over 10 years) I have received a flu shot every year.

There is no reported cases of patients getting the FLU while in the hospital. All the patients who have the FLU had it before admission to the hospital.

This is ridiculous. Why on earth would you think its somehow impossible for a hospitalized patient to get the flu? Does something magical happen once you set foot inside the building? Absurd

Secoundly continues exposure to the FLU causes immmunity just like the live virus that your get with some flu shots.

Exactly. However, this is an argument to get the flu shot, not against it. If you can get the same immunity from a shot than from the actual flu, why would you accept the dangers and morbidity of being sick with the flu?

Thats why most hospital staff are already immunie especially Nurses.

The problem is the flu changes yearly.

The problem with the CDC report is it was based on a Nursing home. Remember those patients live there 24 hours a day 7 days a week 52 weeks a year that changes the dinamics of everything.

1) see above

2) how are the dynamics changed? Specifically?

Great response Eric...accurate and to the point. I think "nobeggin'me" just gives enough info to defend their point and not really look at the problem here. Fact: Nurses are no more immune than any other person.

I hope you never treat me.

No danger there, Oldport; getoveryourself works in the ER. The Psychiatric Wing is on the third floor.

These new regulations in RI are new, Previously hospital staff made their own choices. I am an identical twin who is allergic to Eggs and has had Anaphyllatic shock about 5 times in my life. My sister had never had a flu shot was forced by the hospital she works in to have the flu shot , knowing our family history. She has a job where wearing a face mask is not doable. She ended up in the hospital with neurological problems due to the flu shot. Then next time it could kill her.... There are always exceptions to the rules... Pretty sad when the hospital doesnt listen to your health history or your identical twins health history....

There is NO vaccine for Hep C

To getoveryourself: I work in the health field also. The fact that you believe you can get the flu from a dead vaccine makes me worry about you as a nurse. The flumist was the only live virus administration. You got the flu because you were probably exposed a week or more prior to getting the vaccine. You probably dont get it because like the rest of us you use more precautions in a hospital to prevent transmission. Thanks for spreading your ignorance

this is why studies are conducted with more than 1 subject. Have you ever heard the term outlier? Should we judge the basketball playing ability of everyone in the US after watching a video of Lebron?

get over

parts of your statements make no medical sense therefore I doubt your for real.

old army medic.