OT: update on flu vaccine research

Hi All,
Well now, we have heard this stuff before, but maybe this time it will pan out.
This from a press release, repeated all over the place:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-02-killer-cells-universal-flu-vaccine.html
Scientists said Monday they had discovered immune cells that can fight all known flu viruses in what was hailed as an "extraordinary breakthrough" that could lead to a universal, one-shot vaccine against the killer disease.
Due to its mutating strains, vaccine formulas must be regularly updated and * ONLY OFFER LIMITED PROTECTION CURRENTLY *.
Lets hope.
Oh ya, and I could not help but notice that the marketing weasels changing their tune on the effectiveness of the current vaccine. "ONLY OFFER LIMITED PROTECTION CURRENTLY" Hmmmmmmm. YA THINK!
-T
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 4:38:12 AM UTC-5, T wrote:

We'll see. I'd believe a peer-reviewed journal article before I'd believe a press release.
Cindy Hamilton

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/19 3:14 AM, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

I hear you there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/19 4:38 AM, T wrote:

The team behind the research has patented their discovery which likely means the "miracle vaccine" will probably be more expensive than those $800 epi pens.
Of course the democrats will raise taxes on Joe Taxpayer so all the welfare democrats can receive a "free" inoculation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/19 3:33 AM, devnull wrote:

?on Joe Taxpayer so all

" inoculation.
Don't forget the ~130 million on government subsidized medical through their employers. Get a tax break for it and it is welfare.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 3:08:41 PM UTC-5, T wrote:

 on Joe Taxpayer so all

" inoculation.

Why don't you suggest that to your hero, Trump? Eliminate the ability of corporations to deduct the cost of health insurance they provide their employees, so many of them will drop it and leave more working people uninsured.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:16:06 -0800 (PST), trader_4

Employer-paid health insurance became popular, whenever, because it was tax-deductable to the employer but not taxable to the employee. So it was like giving a tax-free raise to the employees, who probably settled for less since it was tax-free, benefitting the employer too.
But people don't get sick or not based on whether they have a job or not, so it's a silly system.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/19 8:51 PM, micky wrote:

es on Joe Taxpayer so all

ree" inoculation.

eir

Except the rest of us have to pay their taxes for them. The bet way to make a subsidy permanent is to give it to the middle class

It started as a way to get around teh wage and price controls of the second world war. And since prices always rise to meet subsidizes, compared with medical procedures, such as lasik, that are not covered buy insurance, we now pay four times what the service is worth.
My wife went into the ER several moths ago with appendicitis. I told them in no uncertain terms she was chemically sensitive. They said okay. She was in recovery in less than two hours.
Had this been a socialist system, including medicare for all (which sucks by the way), she would have had to wait over 24 hours in the ER, had her appendix burst, and the reactions to the chemicals they would have given her would have killer her 100%. No fooling. Socialized medicine sucks. It is only good on paper.
Not that I want to, but I listen to the Limey news on Classic FM. I get to heard all the scandals in their health system. It really sucks. They especially treat their elderly like shite (Limey for shit).
Our medical system is very good, except for the four times price tag. We need to inject some free market into it. We can start by not subsidizing employer paid insurance. They can buy their own insurance damn it!
We could pop the medical bubble instantly by outlaying medical' insurance, but that would be very cruel to too many people.
Next get rid of state in barriers to insurance. In the state (NV), the Swamp bribes the government to get mandatory provisions added to my insurance policy. Gee Wiz, I have to buy pregnancy insurance and mental health coverage too! (I would not need the mental health coverage if they'd stop raisinfg my taxes!)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 12:36:27 AM UTC-5, T wrote:

es on Joe Taxpayer so all

ree" inoculation.

eir

Again, who is this "us"? You claim to be a "computer consultant", yes? The self-employed can fully deduct the cost of healthcare insurance, just like a corporation can. So, if you're self-employed, your healthcare insurance is deductible too.

More nonsense. The rapid rise in healthcare costs has little to do with the fact that healthcare insurance is tax deductible. People don't get cancer or a stent because insurance is tax deductible.

Sure, I'm sure those ER doctors listened to your instructions on how to treat her. BTW, why did you take her to an ER instead of a witch doctor or hippie?

So, per the above, tell us, what insurance do you have? If you have insurance and you're self-employed, then it's fully deductible. And? You're not deducting it?

Another pig ignorant statement. It's like saying we could pop the home insurance, life insurance, auto insurance bubble by outlawing those. Oh, wait a minute, those are also insurances, which are deductible to businesses and guess what? There is no high cost problem. Doh!

Funny, I thought Trump just gave you a big tax cut.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/19 11:51 PM, micky wrote:

President Trump's economy has record low levels of unemployment. Any reasonably ambitious person can find a job with health insurance.
If welfare democrats want tax deductible health insurance they should get a job.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/20/2019 04:07 AM, devnull wrote:

I don't know about your area but very few employers around here offer fully paid health insurance -- except local and federal government jobs of course.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/20/19 6:41 AM, rbowman wrote:

as

So it

ed

Any

Hi DevNul,
I have to go with Rbowman on this one. With the exception of government workers that live high off the hog off the rest of us, fewer and fewer employers are providing good health insurance. Those that do are raising the deductibles so high that you go into debt with just the deductibles.
Those with good health insurance (outside of government workers) tend to be the "professions", meaning high paying jobs. And since these plans are subsidized through the tax code, the poorer folks that can't get decent health insurance ARE SUBSIDIZING THE RICH.
My big fear is that the temptation to solve the issue will be to socialize it. Then things to really go bad to much, much worse. We have to come up with market methods of bursting the medical bubble. Socialized medicine only works on paper. In practice, it really sucks.
Our health care in the country is the best in the world. It is just four times as expensive as it should be (basing this on health care that is not covered by insurance, such as lasik). As long as someone else is paying the bill, I don't see this getting any better any time soon.
-T
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/20/2019 9:41 AM, rbowman wrote:

True!  If you want full health care, 55 and out pension and easy job and no chance of being fired, get government employment. Otherwise you'll have to work for a living.  ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oren posted for all of us...

fully paid health insurance -- except local and federal government jobs of course.

nd no chance of being fired, get government employment. Otherwise you'll ha ve to work for a living.  ;-)

Do not worry, "Someone from a major lib city near you"© will leach on to them for perpetuity.
--
Tekkie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes.

Nope, particularly with those whose work is what mostly has quite small employers like with many tradesmen now.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 11:51:30 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:

es on Joe Taxpayer so all

ree" inoculation.

r
I don't see anything silly about it. It's a great benefit that many compan y's offer and which many company's need to offer to be able to hire the people they need. And the govt should make all healthcare expense tax deductible for individuals too, but neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have don e it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 4:38:12 AM UTC-5, T wrote:

Show us where the "marketing weasels" at the vaccine manufacturers or any credible health authority claimed that the existing flu vaccine offered anything other than limited protection currently. You create one strawman after another. Everywhere I look, every source acknowledges that the current vaccine effectiveness varies from year to year, from maybe 40% to 60%.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 19 Feb 2019 01:38:07 -0800, T

They've always said each year's vaccine was only good for that year's mutation, and they've always said it wasn't 100% effective, from 40 to 65% iirc. How come you don't know this, and yet you post baseless opinions on this ng.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 12:20:05 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:

Bingo. That's what I've seen too. Facts are facts. And given that about half the people get the flu shot, if it's 50% effective, that's still a huge and worthwhile reduction in the number of people who get the flu, with costs of treatment, lost work, and deaths reduced.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/19 9:20 AM, micky wrote:

True. And every year they accidentally, oops, sorry, my bad, "what is the difference?", forgot to state that their warm from their ear, 40 to 65 % guesstimate is against the virus in the shot, not the virus in the wild, which is typically zero.
Think about it. The researchers have to make an educated guess almost a year in advance what will jump from pigs to humans and be an actual issue. The odds of them getting it right are pretty slim. After the strain that becomes an issue shows up, it is too late to make up a shot (takes too much time).
Also keep in mind that humans a sick 100% of the time. We are always fighting something. We are just not symptomatic. The human body is an extremely hostile place for these critters.
If you really think the flu shot is effective, just breath the air around someone who has taken it. You get the virus with out the thimerosal (mercury). What is life without a little mercury mainlined into your body?

Only if you believe the marketing weasels. Follow the money.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.