13 ms·

> probably only worth getting if you're especially vulnerable I also grew up in the US and came away with the exact opposite impression. Every year from when I

> probably only worth getting if you're especially vulnerable I also grew up in the US and came away with the exact opposite impression. Every year from when I was in grade school through university there was a massive push to get everyone to have the flu shot. I didn't hear the phrase "flu vaccine" but the reasoning was always exactly the same as for the covid vaccines: herd immunity, less chance of getting the flu, less chance of dying from the flu. Now as an adult with no health issues, I go get my flu shot every year. Why not? It's free, it takes barely any time out of my day, and I'm less likely to die.

ifyoubuildit 4y ago
> Why not? It's free [...] I often find myself wondering why people in rich countries feel like this is such a compelling argument. I know everyone's financial situations are different, but if the claimed benefits of a thing are taken at face value, why should a price tag of $0 or $100 factor into your decision to take it? Consider someone with a median software dev salary. Why would the minimal cost of the thing be considered for more than a split second? The effectiveness and safety profile seem to me like they should be all that really matters (probably distantly followed by the social/political/professional pressures). For Americans, it might be from an assumption that if it's medical, it's life-alteringly expensive, but thats not even the case for these things. But this idea of "why wouldn't you take it, its free!" just doesn't compute for me. There are a lot of free things I have no interest in. EDIT: Not to mention that it isn't even really free! You're still paying for it with your taxes/insurance premiums.
- EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago
  I make an above median software dev salary, I definitely spend time considering $100 vs $0. Also, I now live in a country where I don't pay for most healthcare, so the default is free, which means when I encounter unexpected costs in healthcare I spend a little bit of time thinking about it, even if it's only a small amount of money. > Not to mention that it isn't even really free! You're still paying for it with your taxes/insurance premiums. That's a ridiculous way to look at it, I pay the same amount regardless of whether I get the flu shot or not. Therefore getting it is free.
  - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
    It obviously makes sense to consider the price tag when it's some mundane thing like a nice dinner or a pair of shoes or some other random discretionary widget. But if the bill of goods is "you won't get ARDS or kill grandma", who is thinking "hmm, I might get that but $100 is a little steep"? > _I pay the same amount_ regardless of whether I get the flu shot or not. Therefore getting it is _free._ Unless that amount is 0 (which it can't be, right? The drug companies aren't doing this as charity) how does "I pay the same amount" translate to "getting it is free"? Whether you pay at the front desk or you pay later in the form of a tax bill or insurance premium, you're still paying. In fact, you're probably paying for more than your own doses if you're earning more than the median (not that I think that's a bad thing).
yucky 4y ago
>I go get my flu shot every year. Why not? It's free A lot of these decisions people base on their anecdotal experiences with it (right or wrong), including myself. I don't get it because the people in my life who do get them sometimes get really sick for a couple of days after getting it, and it still seems to be 50/50 on whether they still end up with the flu that season. Meanwhile, having had the flu a couple times in my life I know that it sucks but it's still only a couple of days of misery which I would likely get with or without the shot. I'm also a healthy adult though, and I imagine my calculus will change as I get older and more vulnerable.
- EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago
  > having had the flu a couple times in my life I know that it sucks but it's still only a couple of days of misery Because you've been lucky. The flu can and does kill healthy young people. I cannot understand why you would value your anecdotal experiences above population studies and your own life. Anecdotally, I've had friends my age and healthier than me end up in the hospital with pneumonia after getting the flu. A classmate of mine died from H1N1 when I was in middle school. Even if I didn't have those experiences, why would I not take such a simple action with basically no risk to protect myself from a very real threat?
  - yucky 4y ago
    >Because you've been lucky. The flu can and does kill healthy young people. That's about as rare as getting struck by lightning though. And knowing that I will likely get sick if I get the flu shot, and also knowing that I have very rarely gotten the flu, then the question becomes do I want to get sick with flu-like symptoms every other year with the shot or every 10 years without. As I get older this will no doubt change, but for now I'm not scared of dying from the flu anymore than I am of getting bitten by a shark or struck by lightning.

ifyoubuildit 4y ago

> Why not? It's free [...] I often find myself wondering why people in rich countries feel like this is such a compelling argument. I know everyone's financial situations are different, but if the claimed benefits of a thing are taken at face value, why should a price tag of $0 or $100 factor into your decision to take it? Consider someone with a median software dev salary. Why would the minimal cost of the thing be considered for more than a split second? The effectiveness and safety profile seem to me like they should be all that really matters (probably distantly followed by the social/political/professional pressures). For Americans, it might be from an assumption that if it's medical, it's life-alteringly expensive, but thats not even the case for these things. But this idea of "why wouldn't you take it, its free!" just doesn't compute for me. There are a lot of free things I have no interest in. EDIT: Not to mention that it isn't even really free! You're still paying for it with your taxes/insurance premiums.

EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago
I make an above median software dev salary, I definitely spend time considering $100 vs $0. Also, I now live in a country where I don't pay for most healthcare, so the default is free, which means when I encounter unexpected costs in healthcare I spend a little bit of time thinking about it, even if it's only a small amount of money. > Not to mention that it isn't even really free! You're still paying for it with your taxes/insurance premiums. That's a ridiculous way to look at it, I pay the same amount regardless of whether I get the flu shot or not. Therefore getting it is free.
- ifyoubuildit 4y ago
  It obviously makes sense to consider the price tag when it's some mundane thing like a nice dinner or a pair of shoes or some other random discretionary widget. But if the bill of goods is "you won't get ARDS or kill grandma", who is thinking "hmm, I might get that but $100 is a little steep"? > _I pay the same amount_ regardless of whether I get the flu shot or not. Therefore getting it is _free._ Unless that amount is 0 (which it can't be, right? The drug companies aren't doing this as charity) how does "I pay the same amount" translate to "getting it is free"? Whether you pay at the front desk or you pay later in the form of a tax bill or insurance premium, you're still paying. In fact, you're probably paying for more than your own doses if you're earning more than the median (not that I think that's a bad thing).

yucky 4y ago

>I go get my flu shot every year. Why not? It's free A lot of these decisions people base on their anecdotal experiences with it (right or wrong), including myself. I don't get it because the people in my life who do get them sometimes get really sick for a couple of days after getting it, and it still seems to be 50/50 on whether they still end up with the flu that season. Meanwhile, having had the flu a couple times in my life I know that it sucks but it's still only a couple of days of misery which I would likely get with or without the shot. I'm also a healthy adult though, and I imagine my calculus will change as I get older and more vulnerable.

EntropyIsAHoax 4y ago
> having had the flu a couple times in my life I know that it sucks but it's still only a couple of days of misery Because you've been lucky. The flu can and does kill healthy young people. I cannot understand why you would value your anecdotal experiences above population studies and your own life. Anecdotally, I've had friends my age and healthier than me end up in the hospital with pneumonia after getting the flu. A classmate of mine died from H1N1 when I was in middle school. Even if I didn't have those experiences, why would I not take such a simple action with basically no risk to protect myself from a very real threat?
- yucky 4y ago
  >Because you've been lucky. The flu can and does kill healthy young people. That's about as rare as getting struck by lightning though. And knowing that I will likely get sick if I get the flu shot, and also knowing that I have very rarely gotten the flu, then the question becomes do I want to get sick with flu-like symptoms every other year with the shot or every 10 years without. As I get older this will no doubt change, but for now I'm not scared of dying from the flu anymore than I am of getting bitten by a shark or struck by lightning.