Thread: Get a 'flu vaccine or if you get ill, do not come to work & no sick leave Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020323

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The title of this thread is my office policy. Having had the 'flu once, very seriously, so based both on facts and on experience, I'm telling staff they must get the vaccine: I fully support a socially-responsible vaccine policy. Vaccine is free under Medicare here for all who can receive (only certain frail health people and babies cannot have it).

The problem I have for those who refuse the vaccine is that they may infect others for 5 or more days before they have symptoms. Contact with the public means that someone could take home a virus from us and infect an infirm older adult or a child.

Staff need to provide documentation they've had the vaccine. If they have symptoms, they are put off work, covered by sick leave if they've had the vaccine, but without sick leave pay if they haven't. I expect at least 3 weeks off work for an ill person, 5 or 6 weeks is well within time frame.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I have health insurance through my husband, and under his coverage it's free -- but only if you try and get the shot in October. I tried to get a shot in September and the system refused to allow it; cannily I waited to see if the system would improve and it did.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
As one with a compromised immune system, I applaud your policy, NPF. It costs you lost time and efficiency; it could kill me. (And I got my flu shot - the super-duper version - as soon as I could.)
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Current flu vaccines are of limited effectiveness, as they have to try and guess which strains of flu may strike. 67% effectiveness is the most recent figure I can find. Far better than nothing of course.

A new generation of universal flu vaccines ought to be with us if research delivers what is promised.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, there's no 100% guarantee, but, as someone else with a shot-away immune system, I've had my jab already!

Just a sharp little scratch..... [Two face]

IJ
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Yup! I remember the flu jab of yore leaving you with a bit of an aching arm for several days, but that didn't happen last year. I've got this year's booked but haven't had it yet.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Ho boy.

The junior college where I teach has a nursing program, and every fall, Nursing sets up a free clinic, several days in succession, where student nurses get to jab any students who turn up to get the flu vaccine.

The student nurses do not get much practice because the students by and large ignore the clinic.

Staff and faculty are on their own for flu shots. Adjunct instructors get no insurance benefits, period; full-time faculty and staff do, but both groups are currently without contracts (dunno what that does to their health benefits). I don't know what happens to all the vaccine doses Nursing doesn't give out; I wish they'd dispense the excess to those of us with neither insurance nor much money.

I also wish I could bounce from class all those students who show up sick.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I remember being told that people with a healthy immune system shouldn't get the flu vaccine because there's only a limited supply and you don't want to take it away from people who do need it, especially when it's of limited effectiveness anyway. Is that a myth?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
We have ours each year. From memory, they are free to those over 70 and also those on benefits. Of course they have not been 100% effective and there's no way of know what would have happened had we not had them.

I'm surprised that labour law would permit such an employment condition.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I remember being told that people with a healthy immune system shouldn't get the flu vaccine because there's only a limited supply and you don't want to take it away from people who do need it, especially when it's of limited effectiveness anyway. Is that a myth?

Sort of. It was definitely the case in 2004 when there was a shortage due to production problems. I remember that year both presidential candidate John Kerry and president George W. Bush ostentatiously declined getting a flu shot as an example to others. Some conservative commentators tried to shame former president Bill Clinton for getting a flu shot, but given that he was a 58 year old man (at that time) who had recently had heart surgery he fell pretty firmly into the category of "people who do need it".

To the best of my knowledge (not an expert in the field of vaccine availability) there is no similar shortage this year.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
According to the CDC there is no shortage of flu vaccine this year, at least in the U.S.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'm surprised that labour law would permit such an employment condition.

Depends on the employment. If you're a medical professional you can be required to get vaccinated for all kinds of things, but that's considered justified by professional standards and likely exposure through work. In other fields it's a bit dodgier.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I had a co-worker who refused to get one because she couldn't stand needles. But she had several tattoos and a few piercings.
[Roll Eyes]

So of course she'd get the flu every year -- and insist on coming to work. (We did not get paid sick leave at that job.) Then, after using and contaminating every 'phone in the place, she'd go home sick. It was so generous of her to share her lovely virus with everyone.
[Mad]

I always get mine as soon as it's available. A few years ago they announced that they'd probably guessed wrong about the strain of virus, and sure enough, I came down with it (luckily it was right after I'd retired). Because of the vaccine it was probably milder than it would have been otherwise, but it was still pretty bad, and it dragged on for a couple of weeks. I stayed home and selfishly kept it to myself.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I have health insurance through my husband, and under his coverage it's free -- but only if you try and get the shot in October. I tried to get a shot in September and the system refused to allow it; cannily I waited to see if the system would improve and it did.

I deliberately waited until last Friday to get the shot. I had heard that the shot is effective for only a certain number of months. If you get the shot in September the protection may wear off before the flu season is over.

Moo
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I remember being told that people with a healthy immune system shouldn't get the flu vaccine because there's only a limited supply and you don't want to take it away from people who do need it, especially when it's of limited effectiveness anyway. Is that a myth?

Yes. All of this is not correct. The Canadian goal is that everyone over 6 months old gets it. There is not a shortage of vaccine I suspect anywhere. Link.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I never had one in England - the NHS only provides them for certain categories of people.

Here in Wales I went for a routine blood test this morning and the nurse offered me one on the spot. I took it of course, I've twice had bad flu at Christmas in recent years.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I guess I'm one of the lucky ones. When I was an ambulanceperson, we had a free flu jab every year (along with various other precautionary jabs....), and this continued when I was diagnosed with asthma a few years ago.

Now, at 66, retired, and Somewhat Poorly all the time, I get free just-about-everything on the NHS, and am profoundly thankful for that post-WW2 Labour government... [Overused]

IJ
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
It is an act of bastardry for an employer to deny paid sick leave to someone who has an entitlement to it. In Australia, it is unlawful to do so.

If an employee comes to work sick, an employer can direct that person to go home and pay them sick leave to prevent infection. These hard-won conditions are rights, and an employer ought not trample on them like they are a North Korean dictator.

Why don't you arrange to purchase the vaccines yourself and have them administered by a nurse at your workplace?
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I had one today, provided by the hospital where I'm a chaplain. The hospital management definitely believe this is good for the hospital - staff who get the vaccination are not just reducing their own risk of flu, but also the risk to vulnerable patients. And the cost to the institution if a chunk of staff need to take a week or two off.

I went near the end of the day, and the nurse had only given 44 jabs. I would think that 200+ people could have taken up the offer in that building.

Chaplains go everywhere and do a lot of handshaking, so we are probably prime targets for infection control.
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

Why don't you arrange to purchase the vaccines yourself and have them administered by a nurse at your workplace?

That is precisely what happened where I used to work. A lot of employees didn't take up the offer though - I'd be surprised if it was as high as 50%. Rather like Ohher's students above, I guess. Mind you there was no witholding of sick-pay for not getting the jab.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Ultimately, the solution might be to require the vaccine as a condition of employment. It's better to do that by legislation per industry sector than on a workplace basis though. Employers can be very unilateral in their approach.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
It is an act of bastardry for an employer to deny paid sick leave to someone who has an entitlement to it. In Australia, it is unlawful to do so.

If an employee comes to work sick, an employer can direct that person to go home and pay them sick leave to prevent infection. These hard-won conditions are rights, and an employer ought not trample on them like they are a North Korean dictator.

Why don't you arrange to purchase the vaccines yourself and have them administered by a nurse at your workplace?

You can't buy vaccine. It's free. Pharmacists will come and vaccinate everyone for no additional charge. The issue is willingness to get the vaccination.

There is no paid sick leave under labour laws here. There is sick leave but it isn't paid by employers except under a union contract if there is a union or if like us, you want to resemble a good employer and you provide it. So indeed we can do this because the pay for sick days is something we just decided to do, like paying a living wage (we pay the same as a union would or a little better), providing life insurance, providing employer contribution toward retirement etc. None of which is required, just ethical. Medical reason not to have the vaccine is fine of course.

There's something wrong if someone won't do this little bit for the benefit of others isn't there? Yes it is parental of us, and I suppose dictatorial.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Entitlement? To paid sick leave? In the United States? Oh you poor bewildered soul.

ETA: This is to simontoad, which should go without saying but if I didn't it wouldn't.

[ 12. October 2017, 00:34: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'm surprised that labour law would permit such an employment condition.

Depends on the employment. If you're a medical professional you can be required to get vaccinated for all kinds of things, but that's considered justified by professional standards and likely exposure through work. In other fields it's a bit dodgier.
I had forgotten the state of labour law in the US. I was thinking of the condition that you did not get paid sick leave for the flu if you had not had the jab.

Of course, some of us don't get any paid sick leave, and my insurance would not cut in for such a short period.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
For the record, in case it comes up for your employees, needle phobia is a medical condition, not a choice.

It is potentially treatable, but no treatment modality is successful 100% of the time.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
A few years ago the medical advice in the UK for adults was that unless you had a medical condition that required it, you shouldn't take the vaccine every year and should have the occasional year without being vaccinated (one in 4/5 was the figure that springs to mind).

The reasoning was that this helped the body to continue to build up its natural immunities.

I have no idea if this advice is still current.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
I always have a flu jab, being in an "at risk" group and volunteering at a school where children who have the flu are still likely to be sent to school (then sent home again if caregivers or parents can be contacted).

One year an avian flu wasn't included in the vaccine, and that strain became rampant, so I took a break from volunteering for a couple of months.

Huia
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
A former employer of mine offered a free flu jab to anyone who wanted one. I always got it. The building had the air conditioning system from hell and it was a highly efficient vector for pathogens of all descriptions.

Take-up was extremely low despite it being free and very convenient. A doctor or nurse from the Médecine du Travail* used to come in and give the shot in the office. It took literally ten minutes of your day. The main reason so few people got it, I think, was that they very much underestimated the potential seriousness of flu.

* a pinko-commie French governmental medical department specifically charged with looking after health in the workplace
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
For the record, in case it comes up for your employees, needle phobia is a medical condition, not a choice.

It is potentially treatable, but no treatment modality is successful 100% of the time.

They may have the spray vaccine into the nose then. "Nasal mist" it is called and is ordinarily given to children. It is slightly less effective, but the option is available for these special cases. (Treatment for needle phobia is also available and is highly successful.)
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Sorry re available treatment re needle phobia, we would pay for it.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
I choose to not get the jab. I've only had flu twice, but both times I got it from the jab.

While, on balance, it's the rational decision to get it done, it's not 100% effective and there is a risk that one can contract the disease from the vaccination. Given my track record (whenever I get the jab, I get the flu; whenever I avoid the jab, I'm fine) I'd rather take the risk of no jab than the risk of getting it from the jab.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
While some 'flu vaccines are effective against some strains of the influenza virus it is very hard for the medical community to predict which strain will be most prevalent in any given period and thus which vaccine is likely to offer most protection.

In any case, none of the 'flu vaccines available currently are 100% effective even against those strains of the virus they are meant to be best at matching,

Bearing that in mind, it is not fair or sensible to say to people that they should not get sick leave if they get the 'flu.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
My wife used to work in a special needs school (private). They used to get all their teachers vaccinated against flu even though they (the school) had to pay. They reckoned it didn't just prevent illness among staff and pupils but saved them the cost of having to source cover staff.

I presume it was "advisory" rather than "compulsory" as it was a very humane school.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
While some 'flu vaccines are effective against some strains of the influenza virus it is very hard for the medical community to predict which strain will be most prevalent in any given period and thus which vaccine is likely to offer most protection.

In any case, none of the 'flu vaccines available currently are 100% effective even against those strains of the virus they are meant to be best at matching,

Bearing that in mind, it is not fair or sensible to say to people that they should not get sick leave if they get the 'flu.

To be fair, that wasn't the policy No Prophet outlined. If they got the jab and got the flu anyway, they're covered:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

Staff need to provide documentation they've had the vaccine. If they have symptoms, they are put off work, covered by sick leave if they've had the vaccine, but without sick leave pay if they haven't. I expect at least 3 weeks off work for an ill person, 5 or 6 weeks is well within time frame.


 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I choose to not get the jab. I've only had flu twice, but both times I got it from the jab.

No you didn't because that is medically impossible. You probably had a cold or some other illness, but not the flu. Misconceptions about flu vaccine from Centre for Disease Control. Additional link: Harvard University which indicates why people might come to a wrong conclusion about flu vaccine and it causing illness.

[ 12. October 2017, 15:22: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I choose to not get the jab. I've only had flu twice, but both times I got it from the jab.

No you didn't because that is medically impossible. You probably had a cold or some other illness, but not the flu. Misconceptions about flu vaccine from Centre for Disease Control. Additional link: Harvard University which indicates why people might come to a wrong conclusion about flu vaccine and it causing illness.
Or you got some other strain of the flu. The vaccine only protects against the 3-4 strains most prevalent in any particular year (and predicting that is a bit tricky I understand). So it's most likely you got another strain. Which isn't to say that the vaccine wasn't effective-- it protected you against the other strains.
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
I'm one of those who have to get the flu shot every year because of a medical condition. I also get the pneumonia shot every ten years.

This year, I didn't get the shot at my doctor's office, as usual, I got it at my pharmacy which is in my local grocery store. They were giving a $10 gift card to the store to those who got the shot! Score! Plus, I figure the bribery helped increase the herd immunity!

[ETA clarity]

[ 12. October 2017, 16:21: Message edited by: jedijudy ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
What no prophet said re not getting flu from the jab! A folk myth...

Re pneumonia jab, I had one last year, and they said it was for life. I'm 66. I wonder what they're actually telling me?
[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
Oh, look, it's flu hysteria season again. This year's edition of the vaccine is supposed to reduce the risk of infection by 50%. I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but I happen to be one of those people who doesn't get sick from the flu. (Yes, we exist.) I resent being pressured every year to get a shot that will do me absolutely no good, AND there's a 50-50 chance it won't do anybody else any good either. And even that is in question:

quote:

•We found the greatest reductions in the risk of death and of pneumonia hospitalization in the period before influenza season, when there should be no true vaccine effect.

•The reductions in risk before influenza season suggest the presence of bias due to preferential receipt of vaccine by relatively healthy seniors on the estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness observed during influenza season.


Evidence of bias in estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in seniors


quote:
Researchers go on to suggest that fears health care workers are putting patients at “great peril” by not getting the flu shot are “exaggerated.”

The report cautions that the findings don’t mean that the flu shot is useless, but rather that the necessary scientific proof behind VOM policies is lacking.

“This does not refute approaches to support voluntary vaccination or more broadly protective practices, such as staying home or masking when acutely ill.”

Why vaccinating nurses might not be that effective

Seeing as the Ontario Nurses' Union defeated the vax-or-mask policy, no prophet ... should probably check with legal or HR before instituting a policy that requires employees to get the vaccine and might includes denying some employees paid sick leave.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
This is a little bit older, but states the points: Huff post 2014 article re health care worker resistance to vaccines.

If you don't get the flu vaccine and haven't had the 'flu, you're lucky. May you continue to be lucky. I was on this refusenik page until I got it one year after more than 40 years of not getting the 'flu.

[ 12. October 2017, 17:07: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What no prophet said re not getting flu from the jab! A folk myth...

Re pneumonia jab, I had one last year, and they said it was for life. I'm 66. I wonder what they're actually telling me?
[Paranoid]

IJ

I see jedijudi says ten years, you have been told once. I was told a booster was needed after five years which will be up early next year. I wonder if we have apples and oranges here in different vaccines against pneumonia or if we have all had the same? I certainly do not know the details of mine. Shingles vaccine is now free down here for over 65. My brother paid nearly $100 a few years ago. I will ask about that one when next seeing doctor.
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
I've been lucky so far. I'm 51, have spent all my working life in healthcare or working with small children, have never had the flu jab and never had proper flu (nothing more than a heavy cold with a bit of a temperature as far as I recall).
I was due to have the jab at work this Friday, but apparently it's moved both to a day when I don't work and to the office that it's really inconvenient for me to get to...
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
After not getting the flu or even the sniffles for many a year I was in the hopsital on a drip last month.

Not sure this will make me get a jab next year. I used my sick leave, did not turn up to work trying to get through it and so on. A previous employer used to bring a nurse in and I did not get in there; not sure why, I just tend to think its natural and my body will fight it. Once I hit 6-0 I may change my mind.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Many years ago I was sure I had gotten the flu as a result of having been jabbed, so I went several years after that without one. Finally I concluded that it was probably not wise to do so. My employer provided free flu shots to all employees, usually in early November, and so I got one every year after that.

When I turned 65 and retired, Medicare kicked in and my Medicare provider makes flu shots available free of charge. I've gotten one every year since retiring, including this year -- usually in late October or early November, but I've gotten mine already this year.

Other than as noted above, I've never had an adverse reaction, and I haven't gotten the flu either. Colds, yes, some bad, and pneumonia once (after getting a pneumonia shot, would you believe).

Also valley fever (oh, let's not call it acute coccidioidomycosis), but that's transmitted via fungal spores and is not contagious. I'm told that once you've had it, you're immune from then on.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
My oncologist and internist both told me the pneumonia vaccine is good for five years. I believe them, and got another one last year. (And my internist's office just gave it to me automatically with my flu shot.)

If you don't bother to get a flu shot, and you do get the flu (even if you're not symptomatic, which happens), you are really and truly putting others at risk. Please rethink your refusal.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
The pneumonia vaccine protects only against the most common pneumonia germ. There are many other germs which can also cause pneumonia.

Two years ago I caught a germ from my four-year-old grandson. I don't know what he had, but I ended up with pneumonia and severe sepsis.

Moo
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Pneumonia is, of course, not a disease but a symptom. There is probably a small handful of bugs that cause the vast majority of pneumonia cases. But still the fact remains you can't inoculate against a symptom.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I choose to not get the jab. I've only had flu twice, but both times I got it from the jab.

While, on balance, it's the rational decision to get it done, it's not 100% effective and there is a risk that one can contract the disease from the vaccination. Given my track record (whenever I get the jab, I get the flu; whenever I avoid the jab, I'm fine) I'd rather take the risk of no jab than the risk of getting it from the jab.

I get flu symptoms from the shot. Tried it several times, and it always happened. Timing was always very close. Frankly, was like a full-on case of flu. I know the standard opinion is that you can't get it from the shot, and I also know my repeated experience. So I make a point of saying I get the symptoms. Keeps the doctors happy. [Biased]

I've got Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome (CFIDS/ CFS/ ME), and we can have problems with vaccinations. (And no, I'm not an anti-vaxer.) So far, I've avoided the pneumonia and shingles vaccines.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
You might want to rethink the shingles vaccine, at least, GK. From the experiences of my father and the mother of a friend, you don't want to take chances with that one.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
And if you get shingles on your neck or face, there's a real risk of its spreading to an optic nerve. If you're an at risk person, it's a good idea to have it. Subject to proper medical advice in your particular case of course.

The anti-shingles injections Madame and I had a few years ago were far from cheap, but the security was worth it. I heard the other day that it's now free for over 70s.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

Staff need to provide documentation they've had the vaccine. If they have symptoms, they are put off work, covered by sick leave if they've had the vaccine, but without sick leave pay if they haven't. I expect at least 3 weeks off work for an ill person, 5 or 6 weeks is well within time frame.

While encouraging people to get the shot and paying sick leave for them if they get flu anyhow, your policy of not paying sick leave for those who don't get vaccination seems unwise. You're encouraging people who are likely to get the flu to conceal it as long as possible to minimize their unpaid time off.

You probably should check with HR law in your country, but if it's legal, it would be good to factor it into the annual performance review/bonus structure and encourage everyone to take sick leave.

I'm in several high risk categories so I'm usually given an early shot. One year I did tell my doctor that after getting the flu shot, I got flu 3 times. He said that the shot that year covered 4 strains of the common 7 that had popped up.

I work in a very large new office which has trendily packed all the desks together in an open layout, several hundred people and visiting workers from other regions. As a result, last year it just went around and around.

[postscript] I was amused that the posting software reminded me to wash my hands. [Smile]

[ 13. October 2017, 02:57: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Rossweisse and Gee D--

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And if you get shingles on your neck or face, there's a real risk of its spreading to an optic nerve. If you're an at risk person, it's a good idea to have it. Subject to proper medical advice in your particular case of course.

Thanks, both of you. [Smile] Actually, I had my initial case of shingles some years back. And it hit in and around one eye. It was horrible, and all I could do was huddle in bed and whimper. Fortunately, I got on a good anti-viral soon. My immune system is such that viruses don't necessarily clear out, so doctors and I agreed to keep me on the meds. (Huge dose.) I still occasionally get small outbreaks, but they're manageable.

I know this probably sounds pretty weird. Complicated health situation. Even more fun in real life. [Biased]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The title of this thread is my office policy.

Must be nice to be king.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I have just seen Lothlorien's post that her brother paid almost $100 for the shingles vaccine. I think her memory must be out - we paid well over $200 each. Maybe not much by US standards, but a lot by those here.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Both amounts are a lot for most people, anywhere.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I am high risk as asthmatic, so get offered both the flu and pneumonia shots. I reacted badly to the flu shot last time I had it, some years ago now: the sore lump in my arm didn't go for months. Knowing how allergenic I am, I refuse the jab because my next reaction is likely to be worse: When I started reacting to wasp stings, first sting was boring, second sting was a huge lump, third sting on my finger made my hand and arm swell to hide all the bones to my elbow; it looked more like a cow's udder and needed hospital treatment. I have never been offered the nasal spray as an alternative.

I don't recommend flu, pneumonia or shingles having had them all, the latter two most recently.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Couple o' thoughts. no..., as an employer it's your responsibility, not the employees'. Make it so. And following on from the UK Chief Medical Officer reporting from Berlin on the antibiotics apocalypse, apparently our NHS doctors are so weak minded that when we go to them demanding antibiotics for a cough, because 0.1% - 1:1000 - or less are bacterial pneumonia (which is inoculable) and amenable to antibiotic therapy if not too far gone, they cave in and give them out like Smarties. According to 'a doctor' on the BBC.

What utter bollocks.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I never had one in England - the NHS only provides them for certain categories of people.

Here in Wales I went for a routine blood test this morning and the nurse offered me one on the spot. I took it of course, I've twice had bad flu at Christmas in recent years.

Baptist Trainfan

It is £12.99 from Boots (your GP will do it for the same amount I suspect and it may well be available elsewhere). As someone who is likely to visit people who have had chemo, people who have had a transplant, the frail elderly etc You really should.

For those in the UK at the time of the last flu panic, the UK did not have enough flu vaccine for everyone and therefore decided to limit it to vulnerable groups until an outbreak. This has not been the case for several years.

Two other things

Jengie
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
It is £12.99 from Boots (your GP will do it for the same amount I suspect and it may well be available elsewhere). As someone who is likely to visit people who have had chemo, people who have had a transplant, the frail elderly etc You really should.

You've misunderstood me. The nurse offered to do it, there and then, for free. So I had it done! I wonder if this is because in Wales there are no prescription charges (for anyone)?

In fact our surgery is having a drop-in flu vaccine session this morning.

[ 14. October 2017, 09:18: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Sorry.

Jean
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Martin--

Re anti-biotic resistance and patients' demands:

FWIW, the same thing has been said here in the US for a long time. And that (IIRC) the bacteria adapt to handle the anti-biotic, so that one is less effective. There are only so many kinds of anti-biotics available, and evidently this has happened with so many that there aren't many really effective ones left. That scares the heck out of medical folks, because of possible consequences.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Antibiotic Resistance

For those who have read James Herriot vet books then there is a scene in there where James gives antibiotics for the first time to a herd of cows. It miraculous cures the herd who were otherwise on their way out.

It is that experience of antibiotics as a wonder drug that doctors are dealing with. James Herriot even in writing that knows that the wonder cure no longer happens (he is writing in the 1970s or 1980s reporting events of 1940s and 1950s; so a twenty-year lapse but still about twenty years ago). The folk memory makes them a potent item even when no longer effective and probably enhances placebo effect.

Jengie
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Some have asked if what we habe established is fair and legal. Briefly, we adopted the process and procedure from the health region. It specifies vaccine requirements, certification that it was taken, exclusion from work if symptomatic and has some other things we don't do like requirements for antiviral meds in an outbreak, 14 day waiting period after outbreak if vaccinated after outbreak started. We only require the vaccine.

And no, it's not about being king or controlling. It's just sensible. There is a larger discussion about individual versus group rights. And why vaccination is one of our most important public health responsibilities. Sensitivity to vaccine is obviously legitimate not taking it. Antiviral medication during an outbreak, no one has requested but I think we'd pay for it as it is quite expensive. As a small business we have insured people for non-medicare costs for other things, paid directly and given paid leave when there is reason. Good will and happiness at work is important. It is multilateral.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Getting mine next Friday.
 
Posted by Bene Gesserit (# 14718) on :
 
Had mine. Eight years or so ago I developed an ongoing condition. My GP, a good and wise man, gleefully put a flu jab in one of my arms and a pneumococcus jab in the other, and advised me to get the flu jab annually after that. I do - and it not only protects me but, as had been said on here already, it protects others around me.

I do get sick pay if I'm off, but in any case you couldn't go to work with real flu! The question of whether to go to work with a cold is a vexed question for both employers and employees - on the one hand, if you are able to work you should (e.g. if your cold is not a severe one), but on the other hand you don't want to infect anyone else...
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Several years ago, I nearly died because of the flu. I don't know how I contracted it, but I got real sick. It just hung on for the longest time. I really did not have a fever, just constricted chest. Finally, my wife insisted I go to the ER. They X-rayed me. My left lung cavity was filled with fluid (empyema) and it was completely collapsed. They tried to drain the fluid in the ER but when the fluid was exposed to air, it turned to jell. Next thing I knew I was being life-flighted to a regional hospital in Spokane. I was placed in ICU. The next day I was supposed to have surgery but they were having trouble finding an operating room available. In the afternoon, the doctor called and said they were going to have to transfer me again. I told them I did not think I could hang on much longer. Within the hour they had me in an operating room. I was in the hospital for three weeks, in the cardiac care unit. People were coming in for bypass surgery and leaving the hospital within five days. I was a very sick person.

Consequently, when the flu vaccines for the next year become available I religiously get them now.

I also got my shingles shot when I became eligible. I had worked with several people in the past who had shingles so I knew what it could be like. When I was a kid when I got chicken pox I was also very sick, so I knew if I got shingles it could be bad.

I kept bugging my wife to get her shingles shot but she kept putting it off. Then one day she got a small spot on her chin, like a small rash--the size of a quarter, but she said it was quite painful. She went into the doctor's office. She was very surprised it was shingles. After it cleared, she did get a shingles shot because one can have recurrences.

Another series of vaccinations to get for older people are whooping cough because our immune systems get weaker over the years, and pneumonia vaccinations again because of compromised immune systems.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
nd no, it's not about being king or controlling. It's just sensible. There is a larger discussion about individual versus group rights.

There is indeed. Groups do have rights, but typically where such things are acknowledged there is a mechanism for the group as a whole to express its collective wishes. That doesn't appear to have happened in this case. You have imposed your individual decision on a group of people because you believe it to be sensible. You aren't more qualified to make this decision than they are; you just have the power. While this may be legal where you live, that doesn't make it moral to make healthcare decisions for others.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
nd no, it's not about being king or controlling. It's just sensible. There is a larger discussion about individual versus group rights.

There is indeed. Groups do have rights, but typically where such things are acknowledged there is a mechanism for the group as a whole to express its collective wishes. That doesn't appear to have happened in this case. You have imposed your individual decision on a group of people because you believe it to be sensible. You aren't more qualified to make this decision than they are; you just have the power. While this may be legal where you live, that doesn't make it moral to make healthcare decisions for others.
But not getting vaccinated is also a health care choice for others. And they are allowed not to be vaccinated and we are allowed to pay them or not if they aren't at work. What's the problem?

Individual and collective rights are balanced differently in different places. It's cultural I think. When it comes to health care, partly because it is publicly funded and partly because it is a good idea, we have provincial laws which mandate cancer screening for colon and breast cancers, diabetes education and follow-up which results in cheaper or free diabetes supplies, public health visits post birth to homes, basic eye, hearing and dental screenings. Stuff like that. We expect some responsible behaviour from people about health. Some behaviour is encouraged by education, some by nudging people, and some by mandating it.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
A friend got shingles. Two days before she was coming home. I said wait a minute, let me look it up, i remember reading about a shingles technique.

Took me about 6 hours of solid searching.

Called her up and told her what some people with experience say is the cure. She was willing to try anything rather suffer for months.

She got home, called a chiropractor for an appointment, had to wait two day to get in to see him, but one hour later she was pain free.

The rash took about 10 days to heal, but it was visibly going away starting the first day.

Turns out shingles is an irritated nerve, irritated by heavy lifting or moving furniture. (She had been moving furniture, but didn't think to tell me that until later.)

Irritated nerve is healed by finding the sore spot and healing it by rearranging the slightly out of place nerves. Nerve healed, body relaxes, and heals.

Shingles is no longer a threat, as it can be healed in one rather cheap visit. Not by a doctor, but by a chiropractor.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Everything I've ever read (e.g., The Mayo Clinic) says Shingles is a viral infection. An chiropractic "adjustment" isn't going to kill a virus even if it helps with the pain.
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We have provincial laws which mandate cancer screening for colon and breast cancers... <snip> We expect some responsible behaviour from people about health. Some behaviour is encouraged by education, some by nudging people, and some by mandating it.

You are equivocating on the word "mandate", making it sound like "command". No one is obliged, commanded, coerced or forced into colon or breast cancer screening, not even in Saskatchewan. Presumably the mandate to which you refer is the provincial government's authority to mandate that the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency provide such screening to the (insured) public. Who are perfectly free not to take advantage of such services.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Turns out shingles is an irritated nerve, irritated by heavy lifting or moving furniture. (She had been moving furniture, but didn't think to tell me that until later.)

Are you certain that you have not confused shingles and sciatica? Shingles is caused by the varicella zoster virus.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Shingles is caused by a virus, the chicken pox virus lying dormant in the body. You cannot catch shingles, it is caused by the dormant virus becoming reactivated in a nerve (which is why it so painful) This may be triggered by a lowered immune system. Someone with shingles can infect others with chicken pox if the blisters are uncovered and weeping. To catch shingles the person has to have had chicken pox in the past.

The treatment is anti-viral medication.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We have provincial laws which mandate cancer screening for colon and breast cancers... <snip> We expect some responsible behaviour from people about health. Some behaviour is encouraged by education, some by nudging people, and some by mandating it.

You are equivocating on the word "mandate", making it sound like "command". No one is obliged, commanded, coerced or forced into colon or breast cancer screening, not even in Saskatchewan. Presumably the mandate to which you refer is the provincial government's authority to mandate that the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency provide such screening to the (insured) public. Who are perfectly free not to take advantage of such services.
There are in fact very few health precautions everyone is required to take, and the government -- you know, the elected government -- mandates those. Not private employers. no prophet's flag is set so... is violating his employees' civil liberties IMO.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
nd no, it's not about being king or controlling. It's just sensible. There is a larger discussion about individual versus group rights.

There is indeed. Groups do have rights, but typically where such things are acknowledged there is a mechanism for the group as a whole to express its collective wishes. That doesn't appear to have happened in this case. You have imposed your individual decision on a group of people because you believe it to be sensible. You aren't more qualified to make this decision than they are; you just have the power. While this may be legal where you live, that doesn't make it moral to make healthcare decisions for others.
But not getting vaccinated is also a health care choice for others. And they are allowed not to be vaccinated and we are allowed to pay them or not if they aren't at work. What's the problem?

Individual and collective rights are balanced differently in different places. It's cultural I think. When it comes to health care, partly because it is publicly funded and partly because it is a good idea, we have provincial laws which mandate cancer screening for colon and breast cancers, diabetes education and follow-up which results in cheaper or free diabetes supplies, public health visits post birth to homes, basic eye, hearing and dental screenings. Stuff like that. We expect some responsible behaviour from people about health. Some behaviour is encouraged by education, some by nudging people, and some by mandating it.

You are not Justin Trudeau (I assume) and you are wielding a huge economic stick called wages in order to force employees to do something to their bodies. Employers buy labor, not whole people. Its economic bullying whether you are obliged to pay your employees or not.

Have you thought about paying your employees to have the jab? Why not calculate what the flu is costing you, and then split the saving between the company and those who take the jab? It's still unilateral, but you might like it better than my next suggestion.

Why don't you invite the relevant union to your workplace to meet with your people so that a suitable and lawful arrangement can be negotiated.

I applaud your approach of seeking to find a fair solution to the problem you've identified, including paying non-mandated sick leave. Many people would not do that.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I have always had the flu vax injection each year and it has offered good protection against flu. When I was working at the hospital it was a requirement that we were vaccinated. This year, despite being vaccinated, I succumbed to flu after being exposed to a very sick passenger travelling next to me on a plane. My doctor is of the opinion that the virus mutated this year and that the vaccine did not address that mutation. However, if I had not had the vaccination the bout of flu could have been more serious.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I have always had the flu vax injection each year and it has offered good protection against flu. When I was working at the hospital it was a requirement that we were vaccinated. This year, despite being vaccinated, I succumbed to flu after being exposed to a very sick passenger travelling next to me on a plane. My doctor is of the opinion that the virus mutated this year and that the vaccine did not address that mutation. However, if I had not had the vaccination the bout of flu could have been more serious.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
You are not Justin Trudeau (I assume) and you are wielding a huge economic stick called wages in order to force employees to do something to their bodies. Employers buy labor, not whole people. Its economic bullying whether you are obliged to pay your employees or not.

np requires his employees to get a 'flu vaccine, at his expense, based on his belief that choosing not to vaccinate without a "good" reason is wrong.

Hobby Lobby refuses to pay for its employees' contraception, based on its owners' belief that (some) contraception is wrong.

Apart from the fact that np's position is based on correct science, and Hobby Lobby's position is based on nonsense, are there other differences between the two cases?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
How much would it cost to have a qualified person come and vaccinate all employees (save of course those with a proper reason for not being jabbed)?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
A couple of IANAD thoughts:

--Boiron company puts out a medicine called Oscillococcinum. (I think I've got the spelling right.) It helps with colds and flu. Here, you can get it in drug stores, some groceries, and health food stores. Comes in a box with several doses, each in an individual tube of little pellets, which melt under your tongue.

Ok, the controversial bit: it's homeopathic.

It helps me. With my freaky immune system, I can have both cold and flu at the same time. The Oscillo (common nickname), because of all that, doesn't wipe all the germs out. BUT it does relieve symptoms, especially if I start taking it as soon as symptoms start.

I don't think it's a placebo effect, though I wouldn't be against it. I react badly to some other homeopathic meds.

I'm not pushing this. Just letting you know it exists, since some of us can't get the flu shot.

--On the same basis: AIUI, there a homeopathic flu vaccine that's made each year. I haven't tried it. But you probably have to go to a homeopath to get it.

FWIW, YMMV, eat lots of chicken soup.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0