22 children have died so far.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-02-22-flu-vaccine_N.htm
So much for flu shots.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-02-22-flu-vaccine_N.htm
So much for flu shots.
Or quit smoking...I really should carry some hand sanitizer with me.
But I'll already know whether it was a more dangerous brand or not, right? Not that I'd be likely to need it, but still.Flu shots are always for last year's flu. Nonetheless, last year's flu is still out there. If you're in a demographic group that's especially vulnerable to the flu, it's probably worth getting a flu shot. It will reduce your risk, even if it can't reduce it to zero.
22 children have died so far.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-02-22-flu-vaccine_N.htm
So much for flu shots.
Don't forget that one of the reasons the Spanish flu was so devastating was that it happened during World War I. Neither the Allies nor the other side (whatever we called them in that war) dared to admit that there was an epidemic ravaging their countries because they feared it would embolden their enemies to attack them while they were weak. This prevented the free international exchange of information that might have helped mitigate the epidemic. Travel was not even curtailed the way it should have been because it would have been a sign that something was wrong. In fact the only reason we call it the "Spanish flu" is that Spain was a non-combatant so they announced their problem to the world and pled for help or at least warned everybody that this disease was out there.
Flu is rarely a deadly virus. It's the second-order effects that kill people, such as opportunistic bacterial infection. Antibiotics hadn't really been invented yet in WWI. Yes, something like this could certainly happen today, but it would not be as devastating--especially in the developed countries--because we have far superior medical technology ready to treat the second-order effects.