General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Got my high-dose "Old Geezer" flu shot today. [View all]Ms. Toad
(34,069 posts)Aside from the generic hand-to-hand transmission that is independent of immunity status, you can't be a carrier if you are not infected. Since you said essentially they were choosing to be carriers, that comment means esentially choosing to be infected.
I ran the numbers to demonstrate that he probability is not "much lower" with vaccination than without. Given the relatively low rate of infection, and the low rate of effectiveness, the probability is moderately lower (and in a low-infection-low effectiveness year barely lower at all).
I agree with your final point about (albeit not the numbers - which are the overall infection rate, not rate by which infection will be reduced by vaccination, which is a much smaller number).
But it is still a personal choice. When I was diagnosed with breast cancer a few years ago, I chose radiation (which creates a very very small risk of a very aggressive cancer) over simple surgery (which carried a much larger risk of a recurrence of a very slow growing cancer). Whether I made the choice my doctors were pushing, or not, if either ultimately kills me, my family members will feel the loss. But the decision of which risk to take was mine, and I deserved the informaiton (good and bad) to make an informed choice. Just as anyone deciding to vaccinate for influenze (or not) deserves the same.
Literally - all I am doing is injecting scientifically accurate infomation that is almost certainly (based on the reaction I get when I raise it) intentionally excluded from the conversation - in the same way the doctors I fired intentionally exlcuded information about the small, but very real, long-term risks of radiation - because they wanted me to choose radiation.
No - this is not the same choice as radiation v. not. But the principle is the same - in any medical decision, patients have the right to complete and accurate information.