TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Older people just don't matter.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Older people just don't matter.

post #1 of 32
11/30/09 at 3:50pm
Thread Starter 
Geesh, just die and be done with it, will ya?

http://www.lvrj.com/news/elderly-que...-78063362.html

Quote:
Elderly question flu shot controls

65 and older face H1N1 vaccine limits
Quote:
George Anter knows he has a lot to be thankful for during the holidays.

The heart he received during a transplant procedure 12 years ago, for which he gives thanks every day, continues to do its job.

He has won bouts with prostate and skin cancer, and his non-Hodgkins lymphoma remains under control with chemotherapy.

But as grateful as he is, the 74-year-old Anter admits one thing will be bugging him during the holidays.

Two months after H1N1 flu vaccine was first distributed to public health districts around the country, people 65 and older with serious medical conditions still can't get vaccinated.

Anter's doctors at Stanford University Hospital, where he received his transplant, tell him he has a compromised immune system and "the H1N1 flu could do me in."
You see, there is a, supposed, shortage of the vaccine and when there is a shortage of a vaccine, "you must prioritize," according to the CDC and that means if you are 65 or older you are not important to society.

Reply
post #2 of 32
11/30/09 at 3:57pm
I know the government is heartless, but honestly he is probably better off without the shot anyways as I dont think they have done enough testing on it.

Insighting fear into the public before releasing the vaccine was (in my opinon) just a way to rally up some guinea pigs for human testing.

There are plenty of people like me who wont be going to get their vaccine even though I fall into the category to get it, so if I could I'd give that guy my right to the vaccine I would.
Reply
post #3 of 32
11/30/09 at 4:02pm
Are you sure about that because at my local CVS, they are providing H1N1 shots to anyone regardless of priority group....maybe it's just in his area Man, he has been through A LOT of health issues..
Reply
post #4 of 32
11/30/09 at 4:04pm
I dare anyone to tell my brother our 73-year-old mom isn't that important. She's his babysitter! I imagine millions of folks over 65 are constantly being asked to babysit (below market rates too!) and help prevent families from falling apart at the seams

Old folks are important! Period!

Stupid government faceless !!
Reply
post #5 of 32
11/30/09 at 4:09pm
According to our local health authority, over 65s are at less risk for H1N1 because a similar strain went around when they would have been in their teens and do not fall within a high risk group and therefore do not qualify for the first batch. However, now that they have moved past priority groups, they can get one if they wish
Reply
post #6 of 32
11/30/09 at 4:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
According to our local health authority, over 65s are at less risk for H1N1 because a similar strain went around when they would have been in their teens and do not fall within a high risk group and therefore do not qualify for the first batch. However, now that they have moved past priority groups, they can get one if they wish
That is my understanding as well Eithne. These folks have already been exposed to this strain of flu and are not as susceptible as those below 65 so it has absolutely nothing to do with how important they are to society.
Reply
post #7 of 32
11/30/09 at 4:44pm
Thread Starter 
Seeing as how this man has a host of health problems, he IS at higher risk.

I was under the impression that chronic health conditions trumped age. No?

So, only older people with chronic health problems "are at less risk for H1N1?"

But if you are younger and have chronic health problems, you are at more risk?
Reply
post #8 of 32
11/30/09 at 5:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Seeing as how this man has a host of health problems, he IS at higher risk.

I was under the impression that chronic health conditions trumped age. No?

So, only older people with chronic health problems "are at less risk for H1N1?"

But if you are younger and have chronic health problems, you are at more risk?
OLDER folks ( some are even saying those over 40 have been exposed to at least one round of swine before) are at LESS risk as they likely have the ANTIBODIES ALREADY

Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
According to our local health authority, over 65s are at less risk for H1N1 because a similar strain went around when they would have been in their teens and do not fall within a high risk group and therefore do not qualify for the first batch. However, now that they have moved past priority groups, they can get one if they wish
VERY TRUE ... Someone 65 likely has LIVED through 2 BIG outbreaks and several smaller ones
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nekomania View Post
I know the government is heartless, but honestly he is probably better off without the shot anyways as I dont think they have done enough testing on it.

Insighting fear into the public before releasing the vaccine was (in my opinon) just a way to rally up some guinea pigs for human testing.

There are plenty of people like me who wont be going to get their vaccine even though I fall into the category to get it, so if I could I'd give that guy my right to the vaccine I would.
... I am right on the crux of likely having antibodies to this born in 77 ... I will NOT get it nor the flu shot though I am "high risk", I am at higher risk of have complications from the vax too..
Reply
post #9 of 32
11/30/09 at 5:54pm
I have to say that I did get the shot and so far so good. With my COPD I usually have had at least one round of a cold or flu by now so I'm thinking the shot helped me so far. I haven't even been wearing my winter jacket yet or any scarves or mittens.
Reply
post #10 of 32
11/30/09 at 6:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Seeing as how this man has a host of health problems, he IS at higher risk.

I was under the impression that chronic health conditions trumped age. No?

So, only older people with chronic health problems "are at less risk for H1N1?"

But if you are younger and have chronic health problems, you are at more risk?
No, anyone over 65 already has the antibodies the shot is supposed to place with or without chronic conditions, so they kept the available shots for those who dont have antibodies already in place, especially those in high risk groups
Reply
post #11 of 32
11/30/09 at 9:30pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
No, anyone over 65 already has the antibodies the shot is supposed to place with or without chronic conditions, so they kept the available shots for those who dont have antibodies already in place, especially those in high risk groups


I don't understand, am I not speaking clearly or did no one read the link?

This man is high risk, his doctor said he needed the shot but because he is 65 he already has antibodies. I see and who said this? Because I think it is just a bunch of bull to not have to give the shot to old, sick people.

Your "local health authority"? Did this come from the CDC or does your local health authority not have enough vaccine so they, too, are throwing the elderly under the bus?

I think it sucks and sucks bad and it seems like the elderly are always the ones to suffer. Just take a pill as Barack would say. It's pathetic.
Reply
post #12 of 32
12/1/09 at 4:21am
This is across Canada, but local health authorities send out information to their own residents as it included the clinic times. No one I know had an issue getting the vaccine, some even got it during priority only time when they brought a relative to the clinic.

However, since they released the vaccine for everyone some time ago, its a mute point as he would be eligible to get the shot, just not in priority sequence.

I don't see why its an issue to give the shot first to people who do not have the antibodies compared to people who already do? If a vaccine isnt going to help you as you already have its effects - why would you put a foreign substance into a comprimised immune system?
Reply
post #13 of 32
12/1/09 at 7:45am
Thread Starter 
Yes, I do realize the elderly with health issues are not a priority in this country. That is becoming more and more obvious as this administration progresses.
Reply
post #14 of 32
12/1/09 at 11:13am
From the article cited in the thread opener:
Quote:
CDC researchers suggested that the immunity older adults appear to enjoy was built up either because they were infected with or vaccinated against an older seasonal flu strain that closely resembled H1N1.
Americans up to 24 years of age are about 20 times more likely to contract the virus than people older than 65.
People ranging in age from 25 to 49 are five times more likely to be hit by the virus than seniors.
And men and women in the 50 to 64 age bracket have a three times greater chance of catching the virus than those older than 65.
What do you suppose the life expectancy is of a 74-year-old who's had a heart transplant, prostate and skin cancer, and is undergoing chemotherapy for non-Hodgkins lymphoma? He's had a full life, unlike a 15 or 19-year-old far more likely to be infected with H1N1.

If you were the sole witness to a fiery car crash trapping two people, and only had enough time to free one occupant of the vehicle, would you pull the 67-year-old out, or the 27-year-old? The 53-year-old or the 16-year-old?
Reply
post #15 of 32
12/1/09 at 3:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
What do you suppose the life expectancy is of a 74-year-old who's had a heart transplant, prostate and skin cancer, and is undergoing chemotherapy for non-Hodgkins lymphoma? He's had a full life, unlike a 15 or 19-year-old far more likely to be infected with H1N1.

This is exactly the kind of reasoning we will have if the "health care" bill becomes reality. "Death panels"....what crazy talk. Uh huh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
If you were the sole witness to a fiery car crash trapping two people, and only had enough time to free one occupant of the vehicle, would you pull the 67-year-old out, or the 27-year-old? The 53-year-old or the 16-year-old?
This isn't a good analogy because it in no way parallels the degree of the situation Cindy discusses in her OP. But just to play along, I would pull out the first person I could reach regardless of sex, ethnicity, or age. Then I'd try to rescue the second person.
Reply
post #16 of 32
12/1/09 at 5:25pm
Healthcare is a BUSINESS SECTOR in the US. It is profitable to take money from people who are unlikely to require care, withhold it from those who do, and avoid even dealing with those who have a pre-existing condition. This has been the situation in the US for years and I fail to see what the current administration has to do with it.
Reply
post #17 of 32
12/1/09 at 6:43pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
Healthcare is a BUSINESS SECTOR in the US. It is profitable to take money from people who are unlikely to require care, withhold it from those who do, and avoid even dealing with those who have a pre-existing condition. This has been the situation in the US for years and I fail to see what the current administration has to do with it.
Seeing as how the "people who are unlikely to require care" elect to not even BUY health insurance and the health care insurers can do nothing about that, I don't think your claim holds to much water.

LOL, I guess that is why the government will make it illegal NOT to have health insurance. I am correct regarding the government making it illegal NOT to have health insurance, am I not?
Reply
post #18 of 32
12/1/09 at 6:44pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
From the article cited in the thread opener:


What do you suppose the life expectancy is of a 74-year-old who's had a heart transplant, prostate and skin cancer, and is undergoing chemotherapy for non-Hodgkins lymphoma? He's had a full life, unlike a 15 or 19-year-old far more likely to be infected with H1N1.

If you were the sole witness to a fiery car crash trapping two people, and only had enough time to free one occupant of the vehicle, would you pull the 67-year-old out, or the 27-year-old? The 53-year-old or the 16-year-old?
Wow, Tricia, just WOW! How very compassionate of you.
Reply
post #19 of 32
12/2/09 at 7:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Seeing as how the "people who are unlikely to require care" elect to not even BUY health insurance and the health care insurers can do nothing about that, I don't think your claim holds to much water.
I hardly think its fair to say that all healthy people (and therefore less likely to require care) do not buy health insurance.
Reply
post #20 of 32
12/2/09 at 11:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
I hardly think its fair to say that all healthy people (and therefore less likely to require care) do not buy health insurance.


2dogmom made a very valid point...there may be a few people who are taking their chances and choosing not to buy health insurance, but for most healthy people I know, health insurance is a huge priority. I know healthy people who have quit a higher paying job for a job that offers better health insurance benefits..Health insurance companies make huge profit out of the ones who rarely require any health care..but that isn't enough for them, of course nothing will ever be enough for big business unless the government imposes regulations.. so they use their tactics of price discrimination and statistics to change price according to someone's likelihood of getting sick and requiring care...
ckblv, yes, individuals may choose not to buy health insurance, it is a bad choice, but does a bad choice like that mean that in case of illness, they should be denied health insurance and they should be left to die because they can't afford the treatment they require??? Do you believe morally and ethically that is correct?
Reply
post #21 of 32
12/2/09 at 8:04pm
I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that most vaccines are in fact contraindicated for people with severely weakened or abnormal immune systems, of any age, because they're more likely to have unpredictable reactions to the vaccine, or in the case of live virus vaccines, get the disease from it.

If I were elderly, I'd be more worried about studies like the one in this article that decide that dialysis for elderly kidney failure patients is "futile care" and not worth it.
Quote:
The study did not include a comparison group of patients who didn't get dialysis, so it's unknown if more elderly are dying after starting dialysis than not.
Yeah, great research design, guys. Rule 1 of research is always include a control group.
Quote:
Within the first year, 58 percent died and another 29 percent declined in their ability to do simple tasks such as walking, bathing and getting dressed.
Without their dialysis 100% would have died in a matter of weeks, not 58% over the course of a year. Sounds really futile to me.
Reply
post #22 of 32
12/3/09 at 9:17am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post


2dogmom made a very valid point...there may be a few people who are taking their chances and choosing not to buy health insurance, but for most healthy people I know, health insurance is a huge priority. I know healthy people who have quit a higher paying job for a job that offers better health insurance benefits..Health insurance companies make huge profit out of the ones who rarely require any health care..but that isn't enough for them, of course nothing will ever be enough for big business unless the government imposes regulations.. so they use their tactics of price discrimination and statistics to change price according to someone's likelihood of getting sick and requiring care...
ckblv, yes, individuals may choose not to buy health insurance, it is a bad choice, but does a bad choice like that mean that in case of illness, they should be denied health insurance and they should be left to die because they can't afford the treatment they require??? Do you believe morally and ethically that is correct?
If there are only a "few" healthy people not choosing to get health care insurance, then why does Barack keep harping on the subject? I have heard him talking about it many times. If there are only a "few" then why is the health care bill making it ILLEGAL to not have health care insurance? You will be penalized on your tax return for not having health care coverage. Those two things alone tell ME it is a HUGE problem. If there were only a "few," Barack wouldn't keep harping on the subject and Congress wouldn't have felt the need to penalize people that won't get coverage.

I believe that people have personal responsibility. If they choose to not get health care and get sick, they should pay for it. We all make choices in life and we need to live with those choices.

The government will ration health care for the elderly that DO have health care coverage, to me that is much worse.
Reply
post #23 of 32
12/3/09 at 9:58am
Obama keeps 'harping on' not because healthy people arent buying health insurance but because sick AND healthy people dont have it!

He doesnt realise how many healthy people may or may not have health insurance because they are not the ones clogging up hospitals without insurance leaving additional government spending needed!
Reply
post #24 of 32
12/3/09 at 10:26am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
Obama keeps 'harping on' not because healthy people arent buying health insurance but because sick AND healthy people dont have it!

He doesnt realise how many healthy people may or may not have health insurance because they are not the ones clogging up hospitals without insurance leaving additional government spending needed!
That must be why he is going to make it illegal not to have health insurance.

And another thing, why is he going to cut billions from Medicare if he is not going to ration care for Seniors?
Reply
post #25 of 32
12/4/09 at 8:41am
Wait...i thought the people who were MOST supposed to be vaccinated were the elderly, children, those with chronic conditions, and healthcare workers....i must have missed something. Is this just for the regular flu vaccine?
Reply
post #26 of 32
12/4/09 at 6:16pm
Yes the regular flu vaccine lists older people as a priority group
Reply
post #27 of 32
12/4/09 at 7:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by oodlesofpoodles View Post
Wait...i thought the people who were MOST supposed to be vaccinated were the elderly, children, those with chronic conditions, and healthcare workers....i must have missed something. Is this just for the regular flu vaccine?
I believe that is for the regular flu. The H1N1 has different priorities. Anyone over 65 already has been exposed to the H1N1 strain at least twice in their life so their systems have built up immunities to it thus they are not considered as being in the high risk group.
Reply
post #28 of 32
12/4/09 at 7:37pm
Thread Starter 
Sidenote: I saw my Oncologist yesterday and asked him about this Swine Flue Shot and he, VERY, emphatically, told me NOT to get the Swine Flue shot. He thinks it is a very dangerous vaccine.
Reply
post #29 of 32
12/5/09 at 5:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Sidenote: I saw my Oncologist yesterday and asked him about this Swine Flue Shot and he, VERY, emphatically, told me NOT to get the Swine Flue shot. He thinks it is a very dangerous vaccine.
Cindy, you'll find just as many doctors on the other side of that coin that believe it is dangerous not to get it. It's all up to each individual on who you believe, who you trust, and what you want to believe in your own heart.

My older brother was telling me on the phone last night how he got sick with the flu after getting the flu shot. He honestly believes that and thinks the government is giving the flu shot so people will die younger and they won't have to pay social security and there is no convincing him of anything different.
Reply
post #30 of 32
12/5/09 at 5:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Sidenote: I saw my Oncologist yesterday and asked him about this Swine Flue Shot and he, VERY, emphatically, told me NOT to get the Swine Flue shot. He thinks it is a very dangerous vaccine.
A sidenote question....
Did your doctor tell you why he thinks the H1N1 vaccine is dangerous?
If he gave you a reason for his opinion, would you tell us please?
(maybe this should be a separate thread)
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Older people just don't matter.