RSV vaccine

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fast99

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 3, 2023
Messages
57
Display Name
Display name:
fast99
Am older than 60 with very mild asthma otherwise healthy. My Dr recommended I get the RSV vaccine. After the covid debacle am a little concerned about ulterior motives, especially respiratory related. Is this shot safe?
 
I may not be a doctor, but I do have a Pilots of America account, a student pilot certificate, and 40 hours in a fixed wing prop. I've also completed a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluation of the RSV vaccine.

The last part is untrue. What strange times we live in.
 
fast99 said:
Am older than 60 with very mild asthma otherwise healthy. My Dr recommended I get the RSV vaccine. After the covid debacle am a little concerned about ulterior motives, especially respiratory related. Is this shot safe?
Click to expand...
I had the RSV shot months ago, as an overweight adult male age 77 at the time. I had a reaction - just a slightly sore arm - for a day or so. So as a statistical insignificant n=1, I see no downside to getting the shot.

Same with Covid shots as they became available. What “Covid debacle” are you speaking? Have you spoken with your MD, or any other MD, about your possible reaction regarding your asthma? What did s/he say?

-Skip
 
No one here can answer that question for you and believe it or not your doctor can't either. I've always believed in TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch) and that applies to any medication or vaccine. I have found that wise choices for healthy living go much further than medicines.

For instance ... how many here take BP medicine but could likely do without it by weight loss, exercise, healthy diet, reducing stress, proper sleep habits, and good spiritual morality? Most I suppose. I'm not saying that everyone can ditch BP meds but many could but they choose to take medicine because it's easy enough to do and get on with life. If you feel you need a vaccine then you have to decide to take the risk involved. If you cannot identify the risk then you must consider whether taking a vaccine without knowing the risk is worth it for you.

Addressing Covid in particular on this board will be an exercise in futility as there are facts to be considered but they generally get drowned out by the roar of those that seem to forget that all people have the right to make a decision for themselves and that their decision is right for them. Whatever someone else decides to do is none of my business whether I agree or not.

FWIW ... IBTL
 
Daleandee said:
No one here can answer that question for you and believe it or not your doctor can't either. I've always believed in TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch) and that applies to any medication or vaccine. I have found that wise choices for healthy living go much further than medicines.

For instance ... how many here take BP medicine but could likely do without it by weight loss, exercise, healthy diet, reducing stress, proper sleep habits, and good spiritual morality? Most I suppose. I'm not saying that everyone can ditch BP meds but many could but they choose to take medicine because it's easy enough to do and get on with life. If you feel you need a vaccine then you have to decide to take the risk involved. If you cannot identify the risk then you must consider whether taking a vaccine without knowing the risk is worth it for you.

Addressing Covid in particular on this board will be an exercise in futility as there are facts to be considered but they generally get drowned out by the roar of those that seem to forget that all people have the right to make a decision for themselves and that their decision is right for them. Whatever someone else decides to do is none of my business whether I agree or not.

FWIW ... IBTL
Click to expand...

I actually think the idea that every one makes their own decision (true) and that "their decision is right for them" is the wrong conclusion. Just because one makes their own decision doesn't make it right for them. They can be uninformed, they can be self-deluded. A pilot thinks he can brave the Rocky Mountains on a summer afternoon in a Skyhawk. That decision is not "right for" him. It's a stupid decision and very likely to get him killed.

Whatever the solution is about the COVID shots, the whole idea that my right to make my own decision somehow makes that decision right is just wrong. People do things every day that harm themselves and others around them. Additionally, no choice any of us makes is ever just limited to ourselves in its implications and consequences. My rights stop the moment they impinge on yours.
 
Bob Noel said:
Down that path is a loss of freedom where people who think they know it all decide what others must do.
Click to expand...
I do agree with you...as a wise man once said, "Government isn't the solution to our problem, government is the problem".

But on the other hand we've vaccinated smallpox into extinction, and are 'this' close to doing the same for polio.

Of course, RSV and the current strains of Covid aren't remotely as dangerous, so a heavy hand by the government in requiring vaccinations for those isn't appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Lawson_Stone said:
A pilot thinks he can brave the Rocky Mountains on a summer afternoon in a Skyhawk. That decision is not "right for" him. It's a stupid decision and very likely to get him killed.
Click to expand...
Huh. After all, those flights I made through the Rocks in Skyhawks. As an instructor, too. Good thing we didn't know it was so dangerous. We would never have trained so many students in safe mountain flying, and what the risks were. We'd have stayed over the cities and the big flat farms. Or taken an airliner. Or stayed in bed. And missed all the awesome fun.

See my avatar? In an old wooden homebuilt with an old engine built in 1946. In the Cariboo range of the Rockies. I had just come through the eastern ranges of the Rockies from Alberta. This route is a bit more exciting:

1710620068733.png

It's the guys with no mountain training that get into trouble. They know too little about fast-changing mountain weather, they don't pay attention to the map and so are unaware of the various blind canyons they can take by mistake. They just follow the highways. They don't draw out the whole route, with all the magnetic headings on every part of it. And sometimes they try it late in the day when the temperatures are dropping and fog is starting to form in the valleys. Bang. Another wreck.
 
AKiss20 said:
Most inaccurate thing on that one is studying only 6 years through PhD. Try more like 9-10, not to mention that a lot of the pharma development is done by MD/PhDs so more like 12. Wish I could have finished my PhD after only 6 years…
Click to expand...
Yep...6 has been done, but not by mere mortals. 9-10 is about right. But that's not counting postdoc appointments, which can often add another 2 years before landing that first 'real' job.
 
GaryM said:
Yep...6 has been done, but not by mere mortals. 9-10 is about right. But that's not counting postdoc appointments, which can often add another 2 years before landing that first 'real' job.
Click to expand...
6-7 is not that uncommon in Europe where undergrad is generally 3 years and PhDs are more reliably 4 years like they were in the US decades ago. In the US, 4 years to PhD after undergrad is rare and 3 years is basically unheard of now. Average is 5 for most departments, but bio especially is more like 7.

It’s amazing how little fresh PhDs, even after post-docs, can make in pharma. Eventually salaries get competitive but they start off barely better than post-doc.
 
Prior to my last trip I got Flu, COVID, and RSV shots all at the same time.
 
Lawson_Stone said:
I actually think the idea that every one makes their own decision (true) and that "their decision is right for them" is the wrong conclusion. Just because one makes their own decision doesn't make it right for them.
Click to expand...
People have the right to make their own choices and I have to believe that when they make that choice they believe it is the best option at the time. I'm not saying that every choice will be the best one that could have been made but it was theirs to make.

I get your point though and many times loved ones will step in and try to persuade someone to make a better choice when experience has taught them a better way to get through a similar situation. Currently I'm dealing with a loved one struggling with finances. They are making the best choices they trust will get them where they need to go. I don't believe it is but it's not my place to make their decisions for them. If they seek advice I'll offer it but again, they will make what they think is the best choice for them. Personal freedom is real ...
 
Is the RSV vaccine available for anyone or is it limited to older folks?
 
Lawson_Stone said:
Additionally, no choice any of us makes is ever just limited to ourselves in its implications and consequences. My rights stop the moment they impinge on yours.
Click to expand...

If these two statements were true and absolute there would be no rights at all for any of us. Fortunately things aren't quite so black and white.
 
cowman said:
Is the RSV vaccine available for anyone or is it limited to older folks?
Click to expand...
jordane93 said:
Just checked CVS and It’s available to anyone out by me. It may differ from state to state
Click to expand...
I thought the new ones were only for adults age 60 and up, or for pregnant women--to pass along the protection to the child. Maybe the '60 and up' is a recommendation, not a limitation.

The adult vaccines are different than the RSV vaccine for infants. That one has been around for quite a few years.
 
GaryM said:
I thought the new ones were only for adults age 60 and up, or for pregnant women--to pass along the protection to the child. Maybe the '60 and up' is a recommendation, not a limitation.

The adult vaccines are different than the RSV vaccine for infants. That one has been around for quite a few years.
Click to expand...
What I kept reading was recommended for 60+ but the language wasn't too specific.

For the past year our household seems to just get every single stupid ailment that's going around. I've had enough of that.
 
fwiw

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/rsv/index.html

"CDC Recommendations
Adults aged 60 years and older
  • Adults aged 60 years and older may receive a single dose of RSV vaccine using shared clinical decision-making. For adults ages 60 years and older who decide with their healthcare provider to get an RSV vaccine, the best time to get vaccinated is in late summer and early fall — just before RSV usually starts to spread in the community."
 
Daleandee said:
This is exactly the kinda stuff I find disgusting and unnecessary and leads to thread lock ... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Wow - sorry. Not my intent.

There is a false equivalence these days between genuine research for new solutions by people trained to do so vs. people seeking agreement with their presupposition. It’s frustrating to see how the latter has gained so much traction lately, so humor seemed like the best approach.

Again, my apologies.
 
And yet you have the guy who had 217 mRNa shot and seems everything still works normally.

www.bbc.com

German patient vaccinated against Covid 217 times

Researchers have written up the unusual case in a medical journal.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

I have a guy who reports to me who keeps talking to me about how mRNA is bad but happily goes for invasive surgeries including one where he ended up having an antibiotic resistant infection.

People makes no sense sometimes.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
There is a false equivalence these days between genuine research for new solutions by people trained to do so vs. people seeking agreement with their presupposition. It’s frustrating to see how the latter has gained so much traction lately, so humor seemed like the best approach.
Click to expand...

This is true and I get your point.

However, there is another point and another side to the situation alluded to by your meme, and that is experts who believe that their expertise alone should put their opinions above question.

I am not a physician. I am, however, an engineer with a considerable amount of scientific training, a few degrees, and a great deal of experience at reviewing all types of data and drawing meaningful conclusions from it. I'm reasonably convinced that I'm not an idiot (though I'm open-minded on that point if you have conflicting data). I have also been required over the course of my career to explain rather complex technical matters to laymen, so I expect a scientist or physician to do the same.

If I ask a physician to explain some recommended treatment and he falls back upon "your google search doesn't equal my MD" I am going to find another physician quickly. I expect to hear a reasoned, understandable explanation with facts and figures that I can check. If I don't get one, then I question the validity of the explanation and the explainer. If the expert treats me like an idiot, I will conclude that he is one.

And that's for a one-on-one situation. Things are worse in the public arena, as too often political factions and the media pick winners and losers, without any real understanding of their own, so only one idea or one aspect of research is heard.

Your meme, like many, over-simplifies a complex matter and insults intelligent people who expect reasoned, substantiated opinions from experts on all sides of a particular question. I don't want to speak for @Daleandee , but that might be why he didn't appreciate your post.
 
Half Fast said:
This is true and I get your point.

However, there is another point and another side to the situation alluded to by your meme, and that is experts who believe that their expertise alone should put their opinions above question.

I am not a physician. I am, however, an engineer with a considerable amount of scientific training, a few degrees, and a great deal of experience at reviewing all types of data and drawing meaningful conclusions from it. I'm reasonably convinced that I'm not an idiot (though I'm open-minded on that point if you have conflicting data). I have also been required over the course of my career to explain rather complex technical matters to laymen, so I expect a scientist or physician to do the same.

If I ask a physician to explain some recommended treatment and he falls back upon "your google search doesn't equal my MD" I am going to find another physician quickly. I expect to hear a reasoned, understandable explanation with facts and figures that I can check. If I don't get one, then I question the validity of the explanation and the explainer. If the expert treats me like an idiot, I will conclude that he is one.

And that's for a one-on-one situation. Things are worse in the public arena, as too often political factions and the media pick winners and losers, without any real understanding of their own, so only one idea or one aspect of research is heard.

Your meme, like many, over-simplifies a complex matter and insults intelligent people who expect reasoned, substantiated opinions from experts on all sides of a particular question. I don't want to speak for @Daleandee , but that might be why he didn't appreciate your post.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your reply. Please do not take how I reply here as hostile or anything other than intending a good conversation.

As you may or may not know I’m a (retired Family) physician. I’m not a researcher but all of my professional life was driven by wanting to do best for my patients. I have always taken pride in my ability to explain medical issues to patients in terms they could understand, so they were comfortable with what we were doing for them.

By nature I’m not an early adopter (well, apparently except for the Garmin 215). I don’t think most people realize how much competition, debate, and flat-out disagreement there is internally within most scientific areas, including medicine. There is NO WAY an idea, treatment, or whatever gains traction in the medical community without considerable scrutiny. And that’s just in the “research” circles. It takes even more to then filter down to us lowly worker docs for acceptance and adoption.

By contrast there are a surprising number of people who choose to quickly “adopt” a view they want to believe without any real scrutiny. The internet is scary in this regard.

If people think I’ve oversimplified things, that cuts both ways and, in fact, is much more a factor on the “other” side. What peer-reviewed scrutiny is there of “anti-vax Moms”? Zero.

I bet in your engineering life you faced the same thing, at least to some degree. New things that us mere mortals don’t fully understand.

I encourage you to be open to the idea that there’s a whole lot more internal scrutiny and criticism to all medical research than seems to be recognized by people outside the community. Which means there’s really no “equivalency” between both “sides”, even though there’s apparently a tendency to create one.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
There is a false equivalence these days between genuine research for new solutions by people trained to do so vs. people seeking agreement with their presupposition. It’s frustrating to see how the latter has gained so much traction lately, so humor seemed like the best approach.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right about the false equivalence. In particular in the last 15 years the internet has given voice to the mindless, rudderless, incompetent mob.
The mob that believes that an ignorant opinion, if amplified and shared widely enough is just as valid as the truth. They love to sort of have a "democratic truth" based less on data and more about how charismatically you can sell your viewpoint.

It's nauseating to anyone that has taken the time and dedication to master a subject. Spending a couple decades learning the ins and outs of microbiology, virology and immunology -- and BOOM, with the release of 1 "viral" TikTok (no pun intended) video, you can be considered no more knowledgeable on the topic than some entertainment asshat slinging BS for clicks.

So yeah, your meme was absolutely on-point and reflective of the society we live in today -- even if it hits too close to home for some.

EDIT: I think it's self evident that most people questioning vaccine science are NOT former biomedical engineers and/or credible scientists. It's your garden variety proudly uneducated and C-List celebrities looking for 15 minutes of fame and relevance.
(removed my previous michigan reference that many probably wouldn't get lol)
 
Thanks for the information. Didn't mean to stir the pot. There has been so much conflicting medical information in the last few years don't know who to believe. Probably will wait till fall then decide.
 
fast99 said:
Thanks for the information. Didn't mean to stir the pot. There has been so much conflicting medical information in the last few years don't know who to believe. Probably will wait till fall then decide.
Click to expand...
You asked a very reasonable question.

As a physician I recommend getting it, as I have.

No vaccine is 100% without risk, as no treatment for hypertension, diabetes, or headache is either. Statistically the benefits clearly outweigh the risks for the indicated risk groups, from my reading, as is true for all approved vaccines.

If you choose not to, which is clearly your “right”, I encourage you to ensure the decision is based on facts and not the opinions of those with an agenda other than your well-being.

Add: if you trust the judgment of your physician, go with it. If not, consider switching - but I suggest only doing so if you really think they’re not looking after your best interests and not because they recommend something at odds with SGOTI ;)
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
Occasionally. But I didn't respond with a meme like you posted.
Click to expand...
How often do engineering issues get involved in blatant misinformation campaigns bought into by so many people? Can you show me an example? I can’t think of one.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
No vaccine is 100% without risk, as no treatment for hypertension, diabetes, or headache is either.
Click to expand...
Understand that my objection to your meme wasn't because I'm anti-vax or against medicine. I've used both as needed and I know the world is a better place because of the amazing medical advances that have been made.

But there are those with differing opinions and it seems that they are not afforded the opportunity to present what they believe is credible information without being mocked, ridiculed, or excoriated by some of the group.

When folks come here and ask a question seeking answers I would hope that members here would have the common decency to let all sides give what information they have. Shaming some because they have a different understanding (even if it is incorrect) is just (as Chuck Larabee would say) ... "not cool"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top